

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
That is precedent, but incorrect, authoritarian precedent. So its worth it to challenge the bad precedent alone.RoyGBiv wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 6:02 pm SCOTUS precedent is that something made locally does affect "Interstate Commerce", because it causes less consumption of similar goods made in other states.
This is pure theater. Unfortunately.
Paladin wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 8:28 pmThat is precedent, but incorrect, authoritarian precedent. So its worth it to challenge the bad precedent alone.RoyGBiv wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 6:02 pm SCOTUS precedent is that something made locally does affect "Interstate Commerce", because it causes less consumption of similar goods made in other states.
This is pure theater. Unfortunately.
I agree, of course. But, a gun case is predestined to fail. It may even reinforce the bad precedent, because guns.Paladin wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 8:28 pmThat is precedent, but incorrect, authoritarian precedent. So its worth it to challenge the bad precedent alone.RoyGBiv wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 6:02 pm SCOTUS precedent is that something made locally does affect "Interstate Commerce", because it causes less consumption of similar goods made in other states.
This is pure theater. Unfortunately.
However, The logic/rationale might be ...it cannot cause "less" consumption of an item having "zero" consumption in other States ... as it's a banned item per the ATF ... right?RoyGBiv wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 6:02 pm SCOTUS precedent is that something made locally does affect "Interstate Commerce", because it causes less consumption of similar goods made in other states.
This is pure theater. Unfortunately.
Also, maybe this will the first salvo to revamp the commerce clause's current interpretation.First, a private citizen looking to manufacture Texas-made suppressors must first tell the state attorney general. Then, the attorney general would seek a declaratory judgment from a federal court that HB 957 complies with the U.S. Constitution.