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 ...
If the court tied everything to interstate commerce regardless of who's doing it, then there would have been no need to establish the railroad as an interstate carrier, yet the bulk of their decision is dedicated to precisely that. Do you think they went through all of that only to get down to the end and say, "But none of that matters anyway, all that really matters is that they're affecting interstate commerce."?
Correct.
"Congress has no 'assigned power' to "go into a state" and "regulate whats going on"."
Wrong. The assigned power is the Necessary and Proper Clause.
"Considering that Congress itself decides what is "proper", this is no limit at all.."
The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate judge of what's necessary and proper.
"Why would the framers limit the powers of Congress throughout the document, but leave a gaping hole allowing unlimited commerce power?"
Well then, tell me what interstate commerce should Congress NOT be allowed to regulate.
Raich addressed that theory head-on, and observed that:
- there IS an interstate market for it
- when grown & consumed at home, the owner does not participate in that market
- therefore, doing so affects interstate commerce.
Yes, they actually said that - in excrutiating detail.
Not correct per Raich. See my previous post, or (better yet) read the Raich verdict.
You say I claim there's no limits to commerce clause powers.
Which interstate commerce, therefore, may Congress not regulate?
Congress does not have the power to regulate "interstate" anything but commerce "among the several States".
For instance: -- a man making a gun for his own use cannot be 'regulated' by Congress. The very idea that he can is ludicrous in constitutional terms. -- Do you contend otherwise?
Please, -- make a response so that we can settle this, instead of your usual tactic of ignoring questions you don't want to answer.
All of this groundwork was necessary to determine if Congress was allowed to dictate a railroad's intrastate rate. The important thing was that it was all tied back to interstate commerce.
Indeed several were full-auto. New designs, even. This was discussed over at biggerhammer.com, where Bob hung out for a while (though after he, er, departed).
Male? Aged 17-49 (IIRC)? Able-bodied? you're a member, per federal law.
I found that later. From what I read, the feds took one of his .50 kits and intentionally damaged the bolt to make it slam-fire. They then used that as evidence that he was making "machine gun kits" in order to get the search warrant.
Not pactical!
Not quite. The whole set-up was a little more complicated.
They didn't like him making the as-advertised under-the-radar .50BMG (NOT MGs) kits, so raided him on the "felon in possession" theory. ("Felon" arrived thru entrapment he wasn't smart enough to fight.) Having siezed some kits, they managed (through extremely tortuous logic & machineshop hackjobs) to get something to "fire" (through an extremely tortuous definition thereof). That got enough to justify the raid.
During the raid, they found some other stuff that was far more interesting: homebrew MGs. Not just cheesy hackjobs, but interesting new designs professionally executed.
Having 5 homebrew MGs to slap him up with, they dropped the slamfire .50s issue and ran with the 922(o) violation, with a side of "felon in possession".
Male? Aged 17-49 (IIRC)? Able-bodied? you're a member, per federal law. 248 cidonath2
There is no indication he wants to be.
In Raich, there's two things going on -- separate, but related. One, Congress is using the power of the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce. In this case, Congress is prohibiting the interstate commerce of marijuana. That's all the Commerce Clause allows -- interstate regulation only.
Two, in order for Congress to effectively regulate interstate marijuana, Congress uses the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation. In this case, the legislation prohibits the in-state growing, possessing and distribution of marijuana -- recreational OR medical.
How can Congress do this? The only way they can do this is if they can prove to the courts that a) locally grown marijuana has a substantial effect on Congress' efforts to regulate interstate marijuana and b) the legislation is both necessary and proper to stop this activity.
The government has never claimed that Raich's marijuana is interstate or even commerce. Like I said, it doesn't have to be. It is an activity that, when combined with others doing the same thing, has a substantial effect on Congress' ability to execute their regulations.
Which, taken together means that all that is necessary for Congress to increase it's power is for them to craft legislation so ill-conceived and badly written that it's unenforceable without it. We don't need no steenkin' amendment.
Wrong. The courts have ruled that Congress may regulate interstate commerce, instumentalities of commerce (carriers, like railroads and airlines), and activities that affect interstate commerce.
"a man making a gun for his own use cannot be 'regulated' by Congress."
Listen to you. "a man making a gun"! What kind of bull$hit is that?
How about an ex-felon (who's not even allowed to own a gun) manufacturing home made illegal machine guns (regulated by the federal government) for resale, five of them found during a search of his home?
"a man making a gun for his own use", indeed.
I'll ask you one more time. Which interstate commerce, therefore, may Congress not regulate? Or is there "no limits" to the interstate commerce that Congress can regulate, just as I said?
No choice. Congress has decreed it.
Interesting for Congress to declare someone a member of something involuntarily, then deny him the tools for the job.
You say I claim there's no limits to commerce clause powers.
Which interstate commerce, therefore, may Congress not regulate?
Congress does not have the power to regulate "interstate" anything but commerce "among the several States".
The courts have ruled that Congress may regulate interstate commerce, instumentalities of commerce (carriers, like railroads and airlines), and activities that affect interstate commerce.
And you agree with the courts, -- proving that you claim there are no limits to commerce clause powers.
And, - which you also admitted in your posts closing remark:
--- Or is there "no limits" to the interstate commerce that Congress can regulate, just as I said?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For instance: -- an ordinary citizen, a man making a gun for his own use, cannot be 'regulated' by Congress. The very idea that he can is ludicrous in constitutional terms. -- Do you contend otherwise?
How about an ex-felon (who's not even allowed to own a gun) manufacturing home made illegal machine guns ---
Ludicrous objections. Machine guns are only "illegal" in the minds of socialistic, 'majority rules' prohibitionists, -- people like you paulsen.
Can you admit it?
Please, -- make a response so that we can settle this, instead of your usual tactic of ignoring questions you don't want to answer.
What in the world is wrong with everyone building rifles?!?
Teacher317, now do you see this poster for the buffoon he is? He refuses to answer a straightforward question because he knows the answer will show him for the troll he is.
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.