Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High court's Calif. pot ruling also outlaws homemade machine guns
modbee ^ | 7/1/6 | paul elias

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 ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitutionlist; govwatch; libertarians; mrleroybait; scotus; warondrugs; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 401 next last
To: robertpaulsen
The Shreveport court tied everything to interstate commerce, not the fact that they were carriers. Otherwise the court would have simply ruled that, since Congress has chosen to regulate the carriers, they may regulate all operations of the carriers irregardless of the effect on commerce. They didn't.

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."?

241 posted on 07/05/2006 9:50:09 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Congress can only regulate commerce "among the several states", not within them."

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.

242 posted on 07/05/2006 9:55:43 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

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.


243 posted on 07/05/2006 10:00:32 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Not correct per Raich. See my previous post, or (better yet) read the Raich verdict.


244 posted on 07/05/2006 10:01:41 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Teacher317
-- Paulsen contends that ~any~ thing can be 'constitutionally' regulated/prohibited. -- Ask him.. There are no limits to commerce clause powers in the socialistic, 'majority rules' world advocated by paulsen.

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.

245 posted on 07/05/2006 10:03:24 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
First, it had to be established why Congress was regulating a railroad and not commerce. Then it had to be established how a railroad's interstate rate affected interstate commerce. Then how a railroad's intrastate rate affected the interstate rate which affected interstate commerce.

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.

246 posted on 07/05/2006 10:11:42 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

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).


247 posted on 07/05/2006 10:16:37 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Male? Aged 17-49 (IIRC)? Able-bodied? you're a member, per federal law.


248 posted on 07/05/2006 10:20:47 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

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.


249 posted on 07/05/2006 10:23:26 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Not pactical!


250 posted on 07/05/2006 10:25:39 AM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

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".


251 posted on 07/05/2006 10:31:45 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2; robertpaulsen
State gun cases that cite the second amendment are immediately discarded by the lower courts saying that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states.
But the interesting thing is that if a federal machine gun case was challenged on second amendment grounds, the case would have to be brought by a militia member (otherwise he wouldn't have standing in the court).
And you're right. Machine guns qualify as militia-type weapons. 204 robertpaulsen

Male? Aged 17-49 (IIRC)? Able-bodied? you're a member, per federal law. 248 cidonath2

There is no indication he wants to be.

252 posted on 07/05/2006 10:33:28 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Pot that is grown at home and is not sold is not interstate commerce and doesn't have to be for Congress to prohibit it.

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.

253 posted on 07/05/2006 10:33:59 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
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.

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.

254 posted on 07/05/2006 10:41:09 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Congress does not have the power to regulate "interstate" anything but commerce "among the several States"."

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?

255 posted on 07/05/2006 10:47:09 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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.


256 posted on 07/05/2006 10:55:25 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
-- Paulsen contends that ~any~ thing can be 'constitutionally' regulated/prohibited. -- Ask him.. There are no limits to commerce clause powers in the socialistic, 'majority rules' world advocated by paulsen.

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.

257 posted on 07/05/2006 11:24:22 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Finally, Prohibition came about, which solved the problem. You're still a funny guy!
258 posted on 07/05/2006 11:43:41 AM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But if we allow Bob Stewart to build rifles, then we certainly must allow Bob Jones to build rifles, yes? Oh, and what about Bob Smith? Certainly he must be allowed. Bob Johnson? Bob Washington? A thousand Bobs? A million Bobs?

What in the world is wrong with everyone building rifles?!?

259 posted on 07/05/2006 12:07:59 PM PDT by jmc813 (The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Teacher317
Third request. 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?

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.

260 posted on 07/05/2006 12:13:15 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 401 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson