Excellent point. One that, in retrospect, should be obvious, but which seems to have struck neither the N.Y. legislature nor the AG. It still seems to me, however, that manufacturing and selling toy weapons that exactly replicate the appearance of a genuine Glock (or whatever) is not something that one would want to encourage. Of course, waving such a toy around in public in an urban area in such a way that others would think it real is probably tempting fate and Darwin.

Oddly enough, from a legal standpoint, Walmart might have a good argument that the New York law does not apply. The Dormant Commerce Clause divests states from regulating certain types of conduct that might interfer with interstate commerce.

For example, in South Pacific Co. v. Arizona, the Supreme Court concluded an Arizonan law prohibiting trains from crossing the state that contained more than 70 freight cars impermissibly interferred with interstate commerce. Southern Pacific argued that the law required them to choose between disassembling at the Arizona border or avoiding Arizona altogether. Arizona argued the law was a safety measure designed to minimize the risk of certain accidents. The Court struck down the law by applying a balancing test between the state’s safety interest and the very substantial burden the law imposed on interstate commerce. The Court followed this same test to strike down an Illinois law requiring trucks to have contoured rear mud flaps rather than the straight ones mandated by most states; and a Wisconsin law that limited truck length.

Here, Walmart is required to specially manufacture its toys in a manner that may not be any more effective than the federal standard. The net effect of the law is to restrict the flow of commerce into NY state.