Arguments against the Michigan Firearms Freedom Act SB63, conclusion:
(Re. Wickard vs. Filburn) "It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat, and, to that end, to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market, and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices."
It is said, however, that this Act, forcing some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated, and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. The conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination. And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness, of the plan of regulation, we have nothing to do.
SB63 contends it can circumvent the “interstate commerce clause” and Wickard v. Filburn more than suggests otherwise. SCOTUS maintains Congress has control over “intrastate commerce” if it effects “interstate commerce”. How many ways can the federal government construe effecting “interstate commerce”? I will remind you that raw materials are controlled by Congress, subject to regulation at the state level and as they cross state borders. Manufacturing for the purpose of “intrastate commerce” is not immune from the reach of the federal government. As you can see, what we understood going into the contact or statehood is no longer the case as Justice Jackson has stated. What Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson explained to us as regulation of commerce has been altered.
SB63 does not protect the private property of Michigan citizens. After a firearm has been purchased it becomes private property and “interstate commerce” ends. It is not a commodity or good involved in “interstate commerce” such as a block of aluminum intended to be machined into an AR15 lower receiver. The fact that private property crosses a state border doesn't appear to be “interstate commerce”. However, my knowledge of SCOTUS cases is extremely limited. What SB63 attempts to protect is “intrastate commerce” of federally licensed gun smiths and the wealthy who can afford to purchase expensive and custom made firearms. I'm not sure what purpose the stamp “Made in Michigan” serves.
There are three methods to combat the federal government. The first method is to renew the fight against Congressional expansion of power with the “interstate commerce clause”. We must return to first principles, the United States Constitution and The Federalist. This was the understanding we had at the time of statehood. The second method is called nullification. The Michigan Legislature must declare all unconstitutional acts of the federal government null and void having no force of law in the state of Michigan. The third method is to eject the federal government from the state of Michigan. If the federal government steps foot in Michigan they receive a nice comfy jail cell.
If none of these actions are acceptable then you must submit to the federal government.