High court's Calif. pot ruling also outlaws homemade machine guns

modbee ^ | 7/1/6 | paul elias

[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.

[mugs99]

I'm speechless.

Of course you are. No matter how much smoke you blow, you're still stuck with the fact that the federal government is protecting the commerce of violent drug gangs.
.

[tpaine]

paulsen whines:

The courts have ruled that "to regulate" includes "to prohibit"

Shameless idiocy; -- you are begging the very question at issue.

Do the courts & congress have the power to declare that "to regulate" includes "to prohibit"?

-- There is no such power delegated within the Constitution.

[Richard-SIA]

Just more proof that when it really matters, the SCOTUS will give the "Correct" answer, (the one supporting unlimited Gov. Org. power over the citizens) in place of the Constitutionally supported Truth!

All hail the ICC, it overrules the constitution, the clear intent of our founding fathers, and common sense!

So much for a "conservative shift" to SCOTUS.

[Richard-SIA]

Never happen, abuse of the ICC is Gov. Org's. sledge hammer, it can be abused to knock down any restriction of their power they see fit!

The constitutional restrictions on Gov. power are shattered via the ICC.

[Richard-SIA]

You have too much knowledge of the subject, think too logically, and are thus a menace to society.

Report to the re-education facility immediately for a frontal lobotomy!

Ja, zey vill make a GOOD citizen of you.......

[Richard-SIA]

If you really mean what you wrote you will make H.R. 2088 an issue in this election!

Full details of H.R. 2088 can be viewed at the Thomas site, or at http://www.nfaoa.org

[Know your rights]

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.

Shredding the Constitution is a small price to pay to protect ourselves from such a fiend (and from those diabolical potheads).

[tacticalogic]

"That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce ...".

That the wheat taken for personal use by the growers had a substantial economic affect on interstate commerce is an unproven and highly suspect pretense.

[gondramB]

>>Filburn was an Ohio wheat farmer allotted 11 acres -- he planted, however, 23 acres, selling 11 to market at the government-sponsored price (which was 3X world market price) and keeping 12 for his livestock, for seed, and for his family's use. He was allowed to do this, but that required him to either store it or pay a "penalty" of 49 cents per bushel. He refused, saying that Congress did not have the power to regulate his own personal use.

Sound familiar?

The U.S. Supremne Court ruled that Congress did have the power saying, "That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce ...".<<


Unfortunately that sounds painfully similar...I will only differ in saying that the viability of farms nationwide might be considered a more compelling case than some others ...but your basic point that we are on ground with precedent I was unaware of is eye opening. I appreciate you taking the time to educate me.

[robertpaulsen]

"That the wheat taken for personal use by the growers had a substantial economic affect on interstate commerce is an unproven and highly suspect pretense."

"In assessing the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a "rational basis" exists for so concluding."
-- Gonzales v. Raich

You think it's not rational to conclude that millions of farmers growing their wheat for personal use would not impact the market? Now you're just being silly.

[tcostell]

Does anyone know the specifics on the gun case? Was this guy down in the basement with machine tools cranking out fully automatic weapons or was he using a dremel to widen an AK47 magazine slot to accept a 20 round magazine (and thus giving it too many evil features)?

Something smells here (apart from the usual smell of a courtroom.)

[tacticalogic]

You think it's not rational to conclude that millions of farmers growing their wheat for personal use would not impact the market? Now you're just being silly.

I think millions is unsupportable hyperbole, and no, I don't think that the wheat that the farmers keep for their personal use has a "substantial effect" on the interstate commerce of the nation.

[robertpaulsen]

"I think millions is unsupportable hyperbole, and no, I don't think that the wheat that the farmers keep for their personal use has a "substantial effect" on the interstate commerce of the nation."

OK. What if all the wheat farmers did the same as Filburn? You're saying that a rational person would conclude that would not have a substantial effect on the wheat market?

You have an agenda, sir, that prevents you from looking at this rationally, making your conclusion look foolish.

[gondramB]

>>I don't think that the wheat that the farmers keep for their personal use has a "substantial effect" on the interstate commerce of the nation.<<

Its even worse if the wheat didn't have much impact - that means that precedent is very powerful -that the feds can control pretty much anything they choose under the same logic - the effect on interstate commerce doesn't have to be that much.

[tacticalogic]

Its even worse if the wheat didn't have much impact - that means that precedent is very powerful -that the feds can control pretty much anything they choose under the same logic - the effect on interstate commerce doesn't have to be that much.

"The substantial effects test is no test at all - it is a blank check"

-Justice Clarence Thomas

The whole idea is about as screwed up as a soup sandwich. Farmers keeping part of their producion for personal is and has always been a normal occurrance.

[tacticalogic]

OK. What if all the wheat farmers did the same as Filburn? You're saying that a rational person would conclude that would not have a substantial effect on the wheat market?

All the wheat farmers were, and had always been "doing the same as Filburn". A farmer keeping part of what he grows for his own use is a natural occurrance.

You sure you want to start in on agendas?

[Zon]

I don't think that the wheat that the farmers keep for their personal use has a "substantial effect" on the interstate commerce of the nation.

And even if it did, so what? The original intent of the commerce clause was (is) a limit on the states from creating barriers to entry.

[tpaine]

You think it's not rational to conclude that farmers growing their wheat for personal use would not impact the market?
paulsen

It's not rational to conclude that because growing for personal use may 'impact a market', this gives the government the power to prohibit/control growing.

OK. What if all the wheat farmers did the same as Filburn? You're saying that a rational person would conclude that would not have a substantial effect on the wheat market?

Of course it would have an "affect on the market".
-- But unconstitutional government prohibitions & controls have a substantially worse effect on markets, and on our liberties.

You have an agenda, sir, that prevents you from looking at this rationally, making your conclusion look foolish.

Your 'government control' agenda, sir, is evident. -- And as such controls are Constitutionally irrational, your conclusions look foolish.

[Zon]

"The substantial effects test is no test at all - it is a blank check" -Justice Clarence Thomas

How did the automobile effect the horse, buggy and buggy whip industries? They became obsolete modes of transportation. There can be no doubt there was a substantial effect. Today's misuses of the commerce clause by the government would prohibit most technologies of the past thirty years. The pocket calculator obsolete the slide rule. The personal computer obsolete the calculator and type writer. All of those and especially the Internet has had substantial effects on specific industries -- not to mention all of commerce.

[LIConFem]

bookmark...