california violating interstate commerce laws.

[armor2111]

With california banning or restriting the importation and sale of firearms, would, this be a violation of commerce laws? State and federal laws.

[bohoki]

nope local regulations seem to be ok otherwise we would be able to order nunchucks and ninja stars

[MountainDew]

nope local regulations seem to be ok otherwise we would be able to order nunchucks and ninja stars

but you can order nunchuks/ninja stars

[Quiet]

With california banning or restriting the importation and sale of firearms, would, this be a violation of commerce laws? State and federal laws.

Nope, because Federal laws (that have been in effect for the last 45 years) requires transfers of firearms between residents of different States to comply with the laws of both States involved in order for the transfer to be legal.

[sarabellum]

amor2111 has proposed a brilliant question.

The provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states and with foreign countries and Indian tribes.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. As it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state.

Interstate commerce, or commerce among the several states, is the free exchange of commodities between citizens of different states across state lines. Commerce with foreign nations occurs between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments and, either immediately or at some stage of its progress, is extraterritorial.

Although the U.S. Constitution places some limits on state power, the states enjoy guaranteed rights by virtue of their reserved powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. A state has the inherent and reserved right to regulate its domestic commerce. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with, or place a burden on, interstate commerce, or else Congress may regulate that area of domestic commerce in order to protect interstate commerce from the unreasonable burden. Although a state may not directly regulate, prohibit, or burden interstate or foreign commerce, it may incidentally and indirectly affect it by a bona fide, legitimate, and reasonable exercise of its police powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945), concluded that an Arizona statute that prohibited railroads within the state from having more than 70 cars in a freight train, or 14 cars in a passenger train, was unconstitutional. The purpose of the legislation, deemed a safety measure, was to minimize accidents by reducing the lengths of trains passing through the state. Practically speaking, however, the statute created an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, as trains entering and leaving the state had to stop at the borders to break up a 100-car freight train into two trains and to put on additional crews, thus increasing their operating costs. The Court held that the means used to achieve safety was unrealistic and that the increase in the number of trains and train operators actually enhanced the likelihood of accidents. It balanced the national interest in the free flow of interstate commerce by a national railway system, against the state interest of a dubious safety measure. It ruled that the value of the operation of a uniform, efficient railway system significantly outweighed that of a state law that has minimal effect.

However, where there is an obvious compelling state interest to protect, state regulations are constitutional. Restrictions on the width and weight of trucks passing through a state on its highways are valid, because the state, pursuant to its police power, has a legitimate interest in protecting its roads.

On the one hand, California or other states can argue a police power interest in public safety inherent in arms bans. However, to date, no California legislator has produced statistical data showing that restrictive arms laws, like magazine importation bans, have any appreciable effect on public safety. There might be an argument that some state firearm's laws, like the train law in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, overly burden a multi-billion dollar interstate industry, while showing a minimal effect if any on citizen safety.

Good one Armor2111.

[Librarian]

Such discussion goes to Politics and Activism - and this is rather old ground.

Someone who became a Calguns member in 2014 may not have seen it before; the OP joined in 2010.