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 ...
Absolutely nothing. Unless of course you are some sh*tbag third rate lawyer or legislator with a solution looking for a problem.
The problem is defining a legal line between a Constitutionally insignificant number made (to wit: negligible impact on regulatable interstate commerce) vs. a Constitutionally significant number made (to wit: an impact on interstate commerce great enough to warrant regulation via the Commerce Clause).
That there isn't such a definable division indicates the principle is invalid. If something does not cross state lines, it should not be federally regulated - even if its manufacture/sale/consumption has a discernable impact on interstate commerce.
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 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. - which you also admitted in your second posts closing remark:
--- Or is there "no limits" to the interstate commerce that Congress can regulate, just as I said?
Third request. Which interstate commerce, therefore, may Congress not regulate?
Third answer. Congress does not have the power to regulate anything but commerce "among the several States" -- Just as our Constitution enumerates
Or is there "no limits" to the interstate commerce that Congress can regulate, just as I said?
You admit --. " there "no limits" to the interstate commerce that Congress can regulate". -- Just as I initially 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.
You're the buffoon paulsen, for claiming I'm not answering your question..
Please, -- make a rational response so that we can settle this, instead of your usual tactics of either ignoring questions you don't want to answer, or making irrational claims.
Now why would you assume a silly thing like Congress is interested in using its time wisely?
Rifles? Nothing. tacticalogic couldn't make his argument saying "machine guns" so he changed it to "rifles".
My point was that, at some point, local manufacting has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
So, there's no limit to the commerce that Congress can regulate among the several states. Which is what I said and you've now confirmed.
Troll.
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 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. - which you also admitted in your second posts closing remark:
--- Or is there "no limits" to the interstate commerce that Congress can regulate, just as I said?
Third request. Which interstate commerce, therefore, may Congress not regulate?
Third answer. Congress does not have the power to regulate anything but commerce "among the several States" -- Just as our Constitution enumerates
Or is there "no limits" to the interstate commerce that Congress can regulate, just as I said?
You admit --. " there "no limits" to the interstate commerce that Congress can regulate". -- Just as I initially 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.
You're the buffoon paulsen, for claiming I'm not answering your question..
Please, -- make a rational response so that we can settle this, instead of your usual tactics of either ignoring questions you don't want to answer, or making irrational claims.
So, there's no limit to the commerce that Congress can regulate among the several states. Which is what I said and you've now confirmed.
I said that you contend that ~any~ thing can be 'constitutionally' regulated/prohibited. -- According to you; -- there are no limits to commerce clause powers in the socialistic, 'majority rules' world you support & advocate.
Troll
You're the biggest disruptor on this board, bobbie. And you prove it with every post.
Please, -- make a rational response so that we can settle this, instead of your usual tactics of either ignoring questions you don't want to answer, or making irrational claims aned calling names.
"What in the world is wrong with everyone building rifles?!?"
paulsen:
Rifles? Nothing. tacticalogic couldn't make his argument saying "machine guns" so he changed it to "rifles".
What in the world is wrong with everyone building machine guns paulsen?
My point was that, at some point, local manufacting has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Bull, -- that's only part of your 'point'. -- It has become obvious that you hate guns of every kind, and think that any level of government can prohibit them.
Can you admit it?
Please, -- make a rational response so that we can settle this, instead of your usual tactics of either ignoring questions you don't want to answer, or making irrational claims and calling names.
Do you think that they wouldn't have gone ahead with the prosecution of Bob Stewart for making the rifle kits it they hadn't found the machine gun?
And that point is so ephemereal that when it comes time to pin it down, it turns out that any local manufacturing has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Why not say what you really mean?
There is a legal line. "Shall not be infringed" about sums it up.
He was an ex-felon. Yes, they would have gone after him if he was selling .22 cal Derringers.
You have to have a rational basis for concluding the activity has a substantial effect.
Your claim of any local manufacturing is not rational. Neither are you.
We're talking about making, not selling, remember?
You're the one who is unable to give a single example of local manufacturing that would be beyond the reach of Congress by your interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
You say you must have a rational basis to conclude the activity has a substantial effect, but what you really mean is that Congress merely has to imagine that it could have one if everyone engaged in that activity. Why don't you say what you really mean?
Well, let's settle this once and for all by demonstrating the type of blowhard that tpaine actually is.
tpaine, I pinged you to answer one question -- .
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 anything but commerce "among the several States".
In other words, -- Congress cannot 'regulate' commerce that deprives any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. [see the 14th] A prohibition on making a machine gun violates both the 14th & the 2nd Amendment.
I've now answered you four times paulsen.
-- I see you're back to your typical old 'maneuver' of ignoring posts you can't rebut.
This proves that ~you~ are the "blowhard" here..
ALL local manufacturing is beyond the reach of Congress by my interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause ONLY allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Can that be any clearer?
For the thousandth time, IF some local activity (it need not be commerce) interferes with Congress constitutionally regulating interstate commerce, they may use the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause to take action against that activity.
Why does this not make total sense? Because you don't like it? Everything Congress does you don't like is "unconstitutional"?
Making, selling, owning, collecting, handling, borrowing, I don't care. He was an ex-felon. He wasn't allowed to possess guns. I answered your question -- the government would have gone ahead with the prosecution of Bob Stewart for making the rifle kits it they hadn't found the machine gun.
For the thousandth time, IF some local activity (it need not be commerce) interferes with Congress constitutionally regulating interstate commerce, they may use the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause to take action against that activity.
Interesting little sophistry scam you've got going there. Congress can't regulate local manufacturing under the Commerce Clause. They can do it under the Necessary and Proper clause (which must be used in support of some other enumerated power - which is going to be the Commerce Clause). You get to claim you support restraints on the poser of the federal government, without actually having to have any.
Where in the court's decision is there anything that would disallow the same prosecution of someone who wasn't an ex-felon?
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.