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 ...
Well, that's definitely the end of the Republic. State laws mean absolutely jack now.
Oh, you'd be surprised how far a link to a credible site will go.
Stewart was caught with machine guns? IIRC, all of Stewart's guns were semi-auto. The only gun that was full auto was one the feds took and altered by intentionally damaging the bolt to make it slam-fire.
All the way to the recycle bin, once it hits your computer.
robertpaulsen: Wow, did you misquote that decision. Let's start with the exact wording: 156
LOL!
The quote was a copy and paste from the actual court decision in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
You responded with a quote from the Roosevelt Court, The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, of 1941.
Amazing. paulsen's blatant dishonesty knows no bounds. On another thread (The Science of Medical Marijuana Prohibition (Op-Ed)) he wrote. I welcome honest debate. 82 -- I entered the thread, engaged him in a discussion to see how quickly he would prove that he lied when he said that in his 82 post. It began with his first reply to me and continued for about a half dozen more until he bailed out of the discussion.
Pot shops, gun shops, Christian book stores, home schooling, pretty much anything they want to do, they can find a way to make it have something to do with commerce.
The got an advance copy from HG Wells.
LOL!
Oh, man, you just had to ask robertpaulsen to crank up the BS machine, didn't you?
What idiotic nonsense. The Eighteenth Amendment did NOTHING to prevent Congress from relegalizing alcohol through ordinary legislative action.
I'd concede that with respect to the application of how the interstate commerce clause is being applied today, the "homemade" machine guns are illegal ony in the sense that the appropriate taxes weren't paid (but otherwise can't be prohibited by Federal law).
Alito's lone appeals court dissent in machine gun case
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.
To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.
The only ruling SCOTUS has delivered concerning this has been U.S. vs Mille, 307 U.S. 174 (139). In the ruling they carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statutes consitutionality; it instead devising a test by which to measure the constitutionality of of statutes relating to firearms.
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.
It would be my contention that on basis of the Second Ammendement, and SCOTUS ruling in U.S. vs Miller, The Firearms Owner's Protection act of 1986 would be unconstitutional, and prohibition can therefor not be enforced through the commerce clause.
Why, nothing whatsoever, as Congress would retain its legitimately granted authority to regulate such wheat as passed over a state line.
robertpaulen's research skills strike again....
About quoting New York v. Miln... New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837): In Edwards v. California the Court reversed Miln in 1941
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.