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.

[robertpaulsen]

"An unlimited number of 'Bobs' is, indeed, the antithesis of a thousand brownshirts."

You see a thousand brownshirts? Where? Behind that tree? How'd they get there? Did you elect them?

Is an "unlimited number of Bobs" the best way to deal with these thousand brownshirts? Personally, I think it would be more effective to vote out the brownshirts than asking Bob to build me a rifle.

What do we have now -- 60 million people with 200 million guns? And you say we have a thousand brownshirts and we need Bob? How the heck did that happen and how the heck is 200 million more guns going to change that?

When the gun grabbers try to make their case, they point to extremists like you who constantly make Nazi references and talk about using guns to deal with the "problem".

Get a grip. Go smoke a joint.

[robertpaulsen]

"If every person who had the skills and tooling to hand build firearms started doing it, do you think there would be any discernible detrimental affect on the interstate commerce of the country?"

If every person who had the skills and tooling to hand build machine guns (which was the topic) I think that would have a substantial effect on Congress' ability to regulate the interstate commerce of machine guns.

Don't you?

[robertpaulsen]

"I merely offer back to you what you present."

Next time offer it all back or don't bother.

[robertpaulsen]

"What I didn't see there is any of this "substantial effects" BS."

You did see that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, right? And you did see that Congress has the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the Commerce Clause power, right?

Well, I think we can conclude that if some activity interferes with Congress executing their Commerce Clause power, they can legislate on that. Gee, I hope so.

And in order to limit Congress, that activity can't be anything at all -- it must be such that it substantially interferes with Congress' ability.

But to you that's no good because it's not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Kind of a juvenile attitude, isn't it?

[68 grunt]

You see a thousand brownshirts? Where? ...

Dealing with one of them right now!

[tacticalogic]

If every person who had the skills and tooling to hand build machine guns (which was the topic) I think that would have a substantial effect on Congress' ability to regulate the interstate commerce of machine guns.

Don't you?

The only affect it would have on Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce would be to help provide the final check on their ability to abuse that power.

[robertpaulsen]

"Dealing with one of them right now!"

Yes you are, Don.

[tacticalogic]

And in order to limit Congress, that activity can't be anything at all -- it must be such that it substantially interferes with Congress' ability.

Is that what "substantial effects" means? Anything that "substantially affects" Congress' ability to do whatever it wants? That seems to be the gist of your argument.

[tpaine]

A little history. Prior to Prohibition, about half the states banned alcohol in one form or another.

True history; prior to Prohibition, about half the states unconstitutionaly banned alcohol in one form or another. [we have an inalienable right to drink booze]

There was such a problem with "wet" states smuggling alcohol to the "dry" states that those "dry" states asked the federal government for help.

Yep, they asked the feds to ignore the Constitutions 9th and 10th Amendments.

The Webb-Kenyon Act was passed making it a federal crime to do this. It didn't work.

It didn't work because the people ignore unconstitutional infringements on their liberties.

Finally, Prohibition came about, which solved the problem.

Nope, prohibition didn't work either, -- because the people of the USA ignore unconstitutional infringements on their liberties. Thus, prohibition was repealed.

[tacticalogic]

But to you that's no good because it's not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Kind of a juvenile attitude, isn't it?

Less so than the idea that there are no "rights" beyond those explicitly listed in the BOR. I'll believe you're serious when you quit relying on that idea.

[robertpaulsen]

"The only affect it would have on Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce would be to help provide the final check on their ability to abuse that power."

To pontificate: To declare one’s dumbass opinion to be the Word of God.

We have 60 million citizens and 200 million guns. If we don't have the "final check" today, a few million more guns ain't gonna help.

[tacticalogic]

If we don't have the "final check" today, a few million more guns ain't gonna help.

And if we do, a few more will help. The only ones who'd worry about it are the ones who are abusing the system, and want to keep right on doing it. Now, what is it you're so defensive about?

[robertpaulsen]

"Anything that "substantially affects" Congress' ability to do whatever it wants?"

No. Read my lips. Congress has the power to legislate anything that "substantially affects" their ability to regulate interstate commerce, provided that the legislation is both necessary and proper.

[tacticalogic]

No. Read my lips. Congress has the power to legislate anything that "substantially affects" their ability to regulate interstate commerce, provided that the legislation is both necessary and proper.

And in order for them to regulate interstate commerce, it will automatically become "necessary and proper" to legislate anything that might affect their ability to do that. Nice. The "necessary and proper" test is appied to the act of enforcing the regulation, and removed from the regulation itself.

[tpaine]

Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen

When the gun grabbers try to make their case, they point to extremists like you who constantly make Nazi references and talk about using guns to deal with the "problem".

I see paulsen, -- FR's foremost admitted "gun grabber", -- making a nasty personal attack. -- Bad form bobbie. -- Get a grip.

[robertpaulsen]

"Less so than the idea that there are no "rights" beyond those explicitly listed in the BOR. I'll believe you're serious when you quit relying on that idea."

Baseless accusation. We have many rights. Society chooses to protect only a relatively few. Some of those rights society chooses to protect are found in the BOR. Some are found in state constitutions.

But if they ain't there, they ain't protected.

Now, you can scream and cry and deny and say they should be protected and they must be protected and it's unconstitutional if they're not protected. But if they're not protected in either the state or federal constitution, you, sir, are SOL.

[tacticalogic]

But if they ain't there, they ain't protected.

And if a federal power isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it isn't the federal government's to exercise. Strictly intrastate commerce is the State's business, speculation about whether it might be interstate commerce some day doesn't change that.

[tpaine]

if we allow Bob Stewart to build rifles, then we certainly must allow Bob Jones to build rifles, yes?

IF? -- paulsen, are you aware that there is no "IF"? Any citizen of the USA has the right to "build rifles".

Oh, and what about Bob Smith? Certainly he must be allowed. Bob Johnson? Bob Washington? A thousand Bobs? A million Bobs? Looks like "substantial effect" to me. How do you propose avoinding that?

Bizarre bobbie asks another weird question.. -- Why should "we" want to stop a million Bobs from making their own rifles?

Get a grip bob.

[robertpaulsen]

Ah. You thought the Necessary and Proper Clause limits Congress' power simply to buying desks and pencils and hiring bureaucrats to regulate the commerce.

So, according to the way you read it, the states and individuals could undermine and subvert the regulations all they want, and Congress is powerless to do anything about it. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I'm positive that's what Madison had in mind when he wrote it.

I bet he had a good chuckle with his friends -- "Boy, wait until Congress tries to regulate interstate commerce! The way I wrote this, they'll regret it!"

[gondramB]

>>The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's it. If a local activity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating, then Congress has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation controlling that activity. Without that ability, states or individuals could undermine and subvert Congress' authority. Why even give Congress the power?<<

I confess that this is my first serious thinking about this issue so this is a bit off the cuff.

Not in order:

1. The phrase "subvert Congress' authority" makes me a bit wary - during my lifetime (60's through present)it has almost always been the federal government claiming more power.

2. Intent: I can't believe the founders intended to have federal control over a family having an apple tree and eating the apples off that tree - and that's what we seem to be talking about - Federal control of something that is entirely locally produced and consumed.

3. Practicality: Rather than "subverting anything from the states I fear this will actually be a giant expansion of Federal government. Think of the many things that fall in the category of "local activity that has as substantial an effect on the interstate commerce person smoking pot to get his appetite back after chemotherapy" - backyard gardens, zoning regulations, school boards, building codes, utility rates, state taxes - all these things effect interstate commerce.

Taken to an extreme, this could be like that scene in Ghandi where he walks down to the sea to make salt and the British arrest him because if everybody did that then the salt industry would be hurt.