[PUGACHEV]

That line was crossed back in 1942 with the case of Wickard v. Filburn when the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer who grew wheat in excess of his federal allowance was subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause even though the wheat was solely for his personal consumption and none of it left his farm.

[ctdonath2]

Wickard eventually mutated into Raich which expanded the commerce clause to include actively prohibiting anything which _allegedly_ REDUCED demand in an ILLEGAL interstate market. This in turn bounced Stewart, which addressed firearms which never were and never could be in interstate commerce (machineguns built by a felon); SCOTUS refused Stewart citing applicabilty of the just-decided Raich.

So what happens when SCOTUS tells TN "no, you can't exempt that"?