Interesting Montana bill
A bill has been introduced in Montana to declare that firearms made and kept there are not subject to federal control. Two thoughts:
1. I think ATF takes the position in prohibited person cases that a gun must at least have moved in interstate commerce at some time (shown by proof it was manufactured out of state). That may be because the statute requires a link to interstate commerce for these cases; ATF might contend that all other federal restrictions still apply to a gun made in-state.
2. The value of a state law declaring this ... hmm... normally, you'd say not a lot. If it's within the commerce power, it doesn't matter that a state declares that it's not. But in the Lopez case, as I recall, the Court made a big affair of schools traditionally being a state matter, and that states had their own laws regulating gun possession near schools. I couldn't see the relevance there, either (if it's in or affecting commerce, what matters it that states also regulate it, or the commerce relates to traditional state domains? It's either in or affecting commerce, or it's not). So perhaps such a state law would have some weight in the Supremes.