Posted on 05/04/2013 12:46:55 PM PDT by neverdem
It was revisited. Remember Raich, built on Wickard, ruling anything which reduced demand for illegal interstate commerce could be violently regulated by the Feds.
The shoe was on a different foot in Raich. That foot, medical marijuana, is viewed by many with no familiarity with the medical literature as a canard, and a backdoor way of legalizing marijuana. The SCOTUS has since recognized an individual right to arms in Heller, and has since then incorporated it in McDonald.
Except that SCOTUS knew Raich would also take down Stewart, a near identical simultaneous case involving homemade machineguns.
It’s not what is banned, it’s a preemptive strike against what will be should the Obama buy off enough votes. It’s making clear a very big fight will follow, and not just a few lone gun nuts - whole states will deliver a big “F U - molon labe!”
The Dot Matrix, Reloaded - How do you ban assault weapons when you can print them?
Whatever happens, we live in interesting times.
If you think the Wickard decision was twisted, try US v. Miller.
The decision upheld the conviction of an Miller for possessing a sawed off shotgun without the $200 stamp. By the time the case came to the Supreme Court, Miller was dead, and his attorney did not have the funds to have his pleadings printed and travel to DC to submit them. So the ATF attorney blatently lied and said that a sawed off shotgun was NOT a military weapon even though millions of soldiers from WWI had direct experience that it was called a “trench broom” during the trench warfare. No defense was there to rebut these lies. So the justice writing the opinion, who evidently knew better, wrote his opinion trying to ignore evidence that should have been submitted.
In any case, the decision said sawed off shotguns were not protected by 2A because they were NOT military weapons.
But wait ... there is more. The assault weapons ban law specifically outlawed military style weapons. It was held to be constitutional, citing Miller as holding laws that banned weapons as constitutional.
The internet has made all of these opinions accessible to other than constitutional law students.
Thanks for the ping!
Holder has full authority to challenge state laws that he feels contradicts state laws. Who do you think represents the United States in the court system in litigation? It is the US Attorney whose ultimate boss is Holder.
Also, in real life and under how the law actually works it would be the state agent in jail if they tried to interfere with federal agents performing federal duties.
Lastly, federal agents receive their jurisdiction and authority from Congressional statutes and not the local sheriff. While the federal agents cannot force the local sheriff to enforce federal laws, the local sheriff cannot lawfully impede or interfere with a federal agent enforcing federal law. A sheriff receives his authority from a state constitution or state statute but NOT the federal government. Therefore, he has no lawful purview or authority in federal matters.
I don’t keep a ping list, don’t have time at present, but am pleased with some of these recent developments.
Kansas is staking out some breathing room.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.