Posted on 11/03/2005 2:24:08 PM PST by inquest
Just keep begging that question.
The law of the land and of every state. Keep running.
In the case of machine guns, the possession of illicit fungible items that are part of a major market involving interstate commerce, your pretense notwithstanding.
Mojave imagines:
[It's] The law of the land and of every state. Keep running.
You're the one 'running' away from the facts of the issue. Laws repugnant to our Constitution are null & void.
922 (q) is the law of the land, is it Constitutional?
Medical cannabis is not illicit under California law.
Pretense. Illicit means illicit.
Put a sign out in the front yard reading "MEDICAL MARIJUANA FOR SALE" in front of a table full of dope and see how long it takes for California state law enforcement to arrest you.
What's fungible about a serial number?
Spew inanities.
Mojave imagines:
[It's] The law of the land and of every state. Keep running.
You're the one 'running' away from the facts of the issue. Laws repugnant to our Constitution are null & void.
Spew inanities.
Have at it kiddo.. Your own 'spew' is out of control, and amusing..
And question begging means question begging. Which is exactly what you're doing. It's only "illicit" under federal law if the law is constitutional. Which of course is the very point of contention.
And redundant non sequiturs are redundant non sequiturs.
It's only "illicit" under federal law if the law is constitutional.
Every court, every time.
And?
And yet even more question begging. The dispute is over whether the courts have been getting it right.
The loaded question didn't mention the courts' unanimous decisions.
You mean the ones following the lead of earlier courts? That proves nothing.
And the ones arriving at the same conclusion independently. Unanimous includes them all.
There's only one supreme court. It can only arrive at a conclusion initially, or follow precedent.
And?
It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.Proyect, 2nd Circuit
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.