You’re talking about the Kettler case, right? My girlfriend is a government teacher, and when that case was pending cert at SCOTUS (denied, sadly), I showed her the case, and she began using it to highlight how the states can make a decision, stand behind it, and still have to answer to the Supremacy Clause. It’s a real shame this case never got picked up. I love when she gets to use something happening in real time to show her students how the system works, rather than abstract, older cases that can be hard to follow.

Related: Given that the NFA was ‘justified’ in 1937 as part of the powers of the commerce clause (Sonzinsky v US), it was never settled if it was a matter of intrastate commerce as well. That’s what the Kansas, Idaho, and Montana legislators used as the basis of these laws: ignore the NFA if the purchase and possession doesn’t constitute interstate commerce.

By the reasoning of Sonzinsky, the NFA should only apply to interstate, not intrastate commerce. That argument hasn’t ever held up in court, however. (Despite the fact that it should)

The US v Miller case came in 1939, and challenged the NFA, but is a mixed bag of results. The reason it is muddy: Miller was shot to death before the decision, and the case was remanded to lower courts for “further proceedings.” Since Miller was dead, the case died there. The case centered around interstate commerce as well, but Miller was a bank robber and not very well liked.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, I’m working on a series of articles about Supreme Court cases centered on the second amendment, and I just sort of let all that fly out.

Haha thanks. I’m currently about a hundred hours in on research and two hours in on writing. The two cases I think are most interesting right now are Nunn v. GA, and Cruikshank v US. Both of those cases have interesting decisions, parts of which could still be applied today in modern cases. The problem is getting SCOTUS to actually take them up and make decisions instead of throwing a GVR at them and being fat cats on the hill.

Of course! Depending on journal and publishing schedule, it could be months. But I’m hopeful still, haha. Not my first publication, but definitely my first one in this field.

US v Lopez and US v Morrison are both big cases for the Commerce clause, and have some interesting 2A connections. I know Wickard but Raich I’ll have to read about.

Lopez is an interesting dissent to read, specifically Breyer saying that handgun ownership should be under congressional control, as gun violence could affect interstate commerce.

I think one of the big things to consider about Wickard is the time and shape of the country in the 1930s. FDR was taking massive authoritarian leaps to put the country in order, and the laws and cases of the day reflect the increasing room the Federal government needed to operate. (Wickard went through SCOTUS in 42, but was prompted by actions in 1938.) By the time Wickard was being heard, the government’s reach and control was at an all time high to kickstart the American war effort. I think that’s why cases such as Lopez and Morrison were able to scale down some of that overreach.

(I’ll read Raich in a bit—gotta get back to parenting)

Edit: also, in case it needs to be said, I’m not a lawyer—just a researcher with a love of court cases and the right to keep and bear arms.

Secondary edit: this may be the best quote I’ve ever read from SCOTUS. If only it had been in the majority opinion. In O’Connor’s dissent:

One of federalism’s chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that “a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

I do plan on it. Haven’t picked a journal yet, but when I do, I’ll let you know, or post a link here upon publication.

I’m not far from Warm Springs, where FDR’s “Little White House” sits. They sort of point out his SCOTUS packing as a good thing and praise how effectively he was able to nominate new Justices.

If you ever get a chance to visit, it’s very cool history, but it almost hides and glosses over the authoritarian things he was doing. To his credit, at least in my opinion, the borderline dictatorial measures he took ultimately got the country back in motion, but would be seen as unacceptable today. He sorta gets a pass from me because it was almost benevolent dictation. But I don’t think I’d like to ever see anyone else get that close to being able to strongarm the whole country into their will with the stroke of a pen.

FDR fired off just shy of 4,000 executive orders in his 12 years of presidency. Comparatively, Obama issued 276, and Trump issued 220; Biden has issued 37 (in a row) so far.