3 ms·

As long as in-state farmers are required to follow the same rules as others, I don’t know what anyone could legitimately complain about? If the people of Calif

As long as in-state farmers are required to follow the same rules as others, I don’t know what anyone could legitimately complain about? If the people of California, through their democratically elected government, establish stricter rules to protect the air they breath or animal welfare, then it’s all working as intended. Guns really are the counterexample here, as plenty of communities, including the US as a whole according to polling, would chose to restrict private gun ownership to varying degrees. It’s prevented from doing so by a minority that is opposed and a Supreme Court that suddenly decided a few years ago that when the constitution talks about “well-regulated militias”, it really wants to establish an individual right.

sneak 5y ago
I mean, the phrase "right of the people" occurs in 2A after the term "militia", so regardless of where you fall on the gun rights/control spectrum, the SCOTUS decision isn't entirely unreasonable or whole-cloth fabrication. Additionally, the "minority that is opposed" is only a small minority. It's not clear cut. Gun rights will ultimately be a good test of US democracy in the long run. I don't think they're a counterexample because when you trade in firearms between states, the actual interstate transfer must occur between federally licensed entities. The seller takes the gun to a federal licensee in their own state, who mails it to a federal licensee in the destination state, who transfers it to the purchaser. The federal government is expressly authorized to regulate interstate commerce. Voters in California can't regulate animal welfare in Iowa; all they can do is ban trade in out-of-state animal products that are not compliant. The federal government can override those in-state decisions via the commerce clause, as I (not a lawyer!) understand it.

sneak 5y ago

I mean, the phrase "right of the people" occurs in 2A after the term "militia", so regardless of where you fall on the gun rights/control spectrum, the SCOTUS decision isn't entirely unreasonable or whole-cloth fabrication. Additionally, the "minority that is opposed" is only a small minority. It's not clear cut. Gun rights will ultimately be a good test of US democracy in the long run. I don't think they're a counterexample because when you trade in firearms between states, the actual interstate transfer must occur between federally licensed entities. The seller takes the gun to a federal licensee in their own state, who mails it to a federal licensee in the destination state, who transfers it to the purchaser. The federal government is expressly authorized to regulate interstate commerce. Voters in California can't regulate animal welfare in Iowa; all they can do is ban trade in out-of-state animal products that are not compliant. The federal government can override those in-state decisions via the commerce clause, as I (not a lawyer!) understand it.