Posted on 07/01/2006 7:19:16 AM PDT by LouAvul
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A recent Supreme Court ruling that Congress can ban homegrown marijuana for medical use in California led Friday to the reinstatement of an Arizona man's overturned conviction for having homemade machine guns.
Prosecutors in both cases invoked the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, despite the fact that the cases centered on items that were homemade, or homegrown, and didn't involve commerce or crossing state lines. The courts ruled, however, that the items still can affect interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by federal law.
In the machine gun case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reinstated the convictions of Robert Wilson Stewart, 67, of Mesa, Ariz. The three-judge panel reversed its own previous decision to overturn the convictions because he never tried to sell his weapons or transport them over state lines.
Federal agents raided Stewart's house in June 2000 and found five machine guns, which Stewart argued did not violate the congressionally mandated ban on certain assault weapons because they were homemade and not for sale. The appellate court initially agreed with Stewart and overturned his convictions in 2003, ruling the interstate commerce clause did not apply.
The three-judge panel, however, was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision after the justices ruled in 2005 that the federal government could prosecute medical marijuana users and their suppliers even if their activity was confined to California.
In the marijuana case, brought by Oakland resident Angel Raich, the majority of Supreme Court justices ruled that the interstate commerce clause makes California's medical marijuana law illegal. The court said homegrown marijuana confined to the state still can affect the entire national market for the drug, allowing for federal regulation.
The same rationale was applied by the appeals court in the homemade machine gun case.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
The Republic is dead. Government is now legitimated and pursued via the Commerce clause. The remainder of the Constitution is subordinate and immaterial.
Once again, gun bans and marijuana prohibiton are found bound together. The law banning the posession of a machine gun without having a virtually unobtainable tax stamp was the model for the Marijuana Tax Act back in the '30's.
The $22 in my pocket can still affect the entire national economy, too. I guess I'm subject to the commerce clause, too.
I think it is the Interstate Commerce clause that also insists we have to import garbage from other states into PA and from Canada into the USA. Maybe it is time to repeal that sucker.
Yes, even if you didn't want that job in NYC, you could still go there and take it at any time, thus opening the door to regulation of your every move.
I propose that an amendment to restrict the silly application of interstate commerce rules to intrastate commerce would be a much better use of time for the Congress than a "Marriage" amendment.
That's going to put the jobs of a lot of beltway bureaucrats at risk, and they have better access to your representatives than you do.
That's a feature, not a bug.
And RTM as soon as it'll compile.
"But, this is CA, the center of the universe for the loony left."
You don't get the connnection? Well, two items produced and consumed locally (the guns were never for sale, the pot was smoked where it was grown) are found subject to laws that regulate state - to - state transactions. I hope that helps.
As far as being from the loony left, the loony left in CA voted to legalize this use of marijuana. So it would be a case of misapplication of the Commerce clause by the US Supreme court, or as you succinctly put it, the loony right.
It's sort of a triad now. The islamofascists, gun grabbers, and drug warriors each pursue their own 'death to America.'
The point is, we need to win this one despite the bureaucrats, in an "in your face" manner, to make sure the bureaucrats and fellow travelers know that Civil Servant is not "Civil Master".
Bob Heinlein would smile. If we can't win that one,
I guess I would argue this point. In my mind there is a hugh market for new machine guns. Unfortunately congress in their attempts to destroy the constitution, have made it illegal for citizens to own "new" machine guns, old ones pre-1986 are OK, later ones are not.
All those who have the power and mandate to hinder your ownership and possession of such weapons, are not restricted in any way as to their use, and possession, as you the citizen are, but I guess in reality their ownership is also restricted.
IOW's government is not restricted in it's ownership, but you the citizen are, and yet, it seems to me the individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, vis-a-vis the second amendment, though challenged by many, has never been denied, except when government steps in to do so.
IMHO, when facing it's own citizens, the government has a mandate to be undergunned, and when facing the enemies of it's citizens, just the opposite applies. At present, the opposite seems to be the standard, where the citizens are concerned. Hence...
Congress has done it already, in the case of certain guns so the court doesn't have to.
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.