There are several states passing internal laws regarding suppressors, some (Montana among them) have passed laws regarding protected machine guns that fall under the same criteria - manufactured within a state, and never crossing it's borders - and marijuana use entirely within a states's borders. For example, in Virginia, this very day, marijuana possession becomes legal under state law - kinda sorta. In the case of VA, the marijuana laws are a hodgepodge of conflict, even within just state law, not accounting for the discrepancy between that and Federal law. So starting today, in VA, one may legally possess pot, and one may legally grow up to 4 plants for personal use, but one may still not BUY or receive pot in any manner to be able to possess it. One may grow the plants, but it is illegal to get the seeds to grow it from. And, Federally, it's still illegal as hell.
The suppressor and machine gun laws and increasingly, marijuana laws, even if internally consistent within a state's legal framework, are still at odds with the Federal law. State level law and Federal level law are two entirely separate bodies of law. One may be in a situation where he can legally do something in a state that he cannot legally do Federally. The state won't prosecute for something legal under state law, bu if the Feds get wind of it, they have no compunction against prosecuting under federal law, in Federal court.
In some cases, it falls down to which cops know what. Local law enforcement may or may not work with Federal law enforcement. Federal money is sometimes the bribe to get them to do so. Some states, Missouri among them, have passed state laws that make it illegal for local LE to work with Federal LE to enforce Federal law, and theoretically those laws are correct, because local LE is not bound to enforce a Federal jurisdictional matter that is not also a state jurisdictional matter. they work for the state, not the Feds. BUT - I'm not aware of any legal cases where that has been tested in court... yet. it's probably coming at some point, though.
So, if local cops know you have a suppressor in Texas, but the Feds DON'T know it, and the locals don't tell them, how do the Feds know that a Federal Law is being broken?
Federally, there have been two legal theories brought into play to deal with local situations that never "leave the farm" and aren't violations of local law. They have made extensive use of the Constitution's Commerce Clause to poke around in purely local business on the theory that ANY action "affects interstate commerce" - in the wheat example cited in your post, the theory is that if Farmer Jones grows and consumes his own wheat in Kansas, he may be putting a strain on another wheat farmer in Iowa by NOT buying Iowan wheat products... which they interpret as "affecting interstate commerce" for purposes of extending Federal over-reach, and to Federally violate state jurisdiction. That's why "machinegun states", and now Texas as a "suppressor state" include language in their laws specifying that if an item is made in that state and never crosses state lines, it's none of the Fed's business, since it is not "affecting interstate commerce".
The other legal theory that is increasingly being brought into play is the Tenth Amendment, which makes Federal law applicable across all states superseding conflicting state laws. So, if the good ol' "Commerce Clause" argument ever fails them, they have a fallback position in the Tenth Amendment to violate States Rights, to govern their own citizens, with.
The Tenth Amendment, however, cuts in two directions. It is coming into use now to apply the Second Amendment across all states, and deflate state laws that make firearms possession illegal or state-wise more burdensome than Federal law.
So, my advice to folks contemplating breaking Federal Law while remaining within the limits of more local laws is to just keep your own business under your hat. They cannot prosecute what they don't know exists to be prosecuted. If NO law men know about it, how can ANY of them prosecute it?
These suppressor laws are probably destined for testing. Nowadays, one can buy a "fuel filter" that looks suspiciously suppressor-like direct from China. They are all over the internet. Now, the Chinese are wondrous smugglers, and can get damned near anything direct to your door for a price. To get to your door from China, it has to cross usually several state lines as well as at least one national border... but at the point it's crossing, it's not, technically, a suppressor. It is declared, to my understanding, as a "metal tube", which in reality is all it is. Once you have it in hand, it's up to you whether to manufacture a suppressor from it by drilling various holes for bullet passage. Under Federal law, that then becomes "manufacturing a suppressor". So it is manufactured locally, and Federally illegally. This law stipulates that it's not Federal business if it never crosses state lines after manufacture. You just KNOW the Feds are gonna have to test that, and they have a pretty good track record when it comes to lowering the boom on folks who have displeased them.
There have also been moves Federally to remove suppressors from the ATF ban registry, making them Federally legal, but so far no luck in actually passing such laws. It remains to be seen whether the ATF wants to push that by testing local suppressor laws.
So, caveat emptor, and keep your own business under your own hat. If you intentionally poke the lion in it's own den, it has a bad habit of swiping back with a clawed paw.
.
The suppressor and machine gun laws and increasingly, marijuana laws, even if internally consistent within a state's legal framework, are still at odds with the Federal law. State level law and Federal level law are two entirely separate bodies of law. One may be in a situation where he can legally do something in a state that he cannot legally do Federally. The state won't prosecute for something legal under state law, bu if the Feds get wind of it, they have no compunction against prosecuting under federal law, in Federal court.
In some cases, it falls down to which cops know what. Local law enforcement may or may not work with Federal law enforcement. Federal money is sometimes the bribe to get them to do so. Some states, Missouri among them, have passed state laws that make it illegal for local LE to work with Federal LE to enforce Federal law, and theoretically those laws are correct, because local LE is not bound to enforce a Federal jurisdictional matter that is not also a state jurisdictional matter. they work for the state, not the Feds. BUT - I'm not aware of any legal cases where that has been tested in court... yet. it's probably coming at some point, though.
So, if local cops know you have a suppressor in Texas, but the Feds DON'T know it, and the locals don't tell them, how do the Feds know that a Federal Law is being broken?
Federally, there have been two legal theories brought into play to deal with local situations that never "leave the farm" and aren't violations of local law. They have made extensive use of the Constitution's Commerce Clause to poke around in purely local business on the theory that ANY action "affects interstate commerce" - in the wheat example cited in your post, the theory is that if Farmer Jones grows and consumes his own wheat in Kansas, he may be putting a strain on another wheat farmer in Iowa by NOT buying Iowan wheat products... which they interpret as "affecting interstate commerce" for purposes of extending Federal over-reach, and to Federally violate state jurisdiction. That's why "machinegun states", and now Texas as a "suppressor state" include language in their laws specifying that if an item is made in that state and never crosses state lines, it's none of the Fed's business, since it is not "affecting interstate commerce".
The other legal theory that is increasingly being brought into play is the Tenth Amendment, which makes Federal law applicable across all states superseding conflicting state laws. So, if the good ol' "Commerce Clause" argument ever fails them, they have a fallback position in the Tenth Amendment to violate States Rights, to govern their own citizens, with.
The Tenth Amendment, however, cuts in two directions. It is coming into use now to apply the Second Amendment across all states, and deflate state laws that make firearms possession illegal or state-wise more burdensome than Federal law.
So, my advice to folks contemplating breaking Federal Law while remaining within the limits of more local laws is to just keep your own business under your hat. They cannot prosecute what they don't know exists to be prosecuted. If NO law men know about it, how can ANY of them prosecute it?
These suppressor laws are probably destined for testing. Nowadays, one can buy a "fuel filter" that looks suspiciously suppressor-like direct from China. They are all over the internet. Now, the Chinese are wondrous smugglers, and can get damned near anything direct to your door for a price. To get to your door from China, it has to cross usually several state lines as well as at least one national border... but at the point it's crossing, it's not, technically, a suppressor. It is declared, to my understanding, as a "metal tube", which in reality is all it is. Once you have it in hand, it's up to you whether to manufacture a suppressor from it by drilling various holes for bullet passage. Under Federal law, that then becomes "manufacturing a suppressor". So it is manufactured locally, and Federally illegally. This law stipulates that it's not Federal business if it never crosses state lines after manufacture. You just KNOW the Feds are gonna have to test that, and they have a pretty good track record when it comes to lowering the boom on folks who have displeased them.
There have also been moves Federally to remove suppressors from the ATF ban registry, making them Federally legal, but so far no luck in actually passing such laws. It remains to be seen whether the ATF wants to push that by testing local suppressor laws.
So, caveat emptor, and keep your own business under your own hat. If you intentionally poke the lion in it's own den, it has a bad habit of swiping back with a clawed paw.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’