[raygun]

This ruling is screwed up on so many levels. First off: the Fed Gov has no jurisdiction respecting firearms violations on the basis of the 2nd ammendment guarentees. This was afirmed in U.S. v. MIller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) concerning the constitutionality of keeping and bearing militia-type firearms. The same case also confirmed that the "militia" consists of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

So the Feds appealed the Appeals Court decision (which initially ruled in defendends favor on commerce clause grounds), and the Supreme Court remanded it back to the 9th Circuit Court with admonishment respecting stare decisis regarding U.S. vs. Willard (as it applies to the marijuana case).

The 9th Circuit Court rules in favor of Fed Gov on the basis of the commerce clause, instead of Miller vs Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894), whereby the 2nd and 4th Ammendments did not in and of themselves limit state action. In other words, the State can act to regulate firearms (not the Fed Gov) acording to the 10th Ammendment and in that the Militia is regulated by the State (not the Fed).

[robertpaulsen]

The Stewart machine gun case had nothing to do with the second amendment. The federal government uses the power of the Commerce Clause to regulate/prohibit the interstate commerce of machine guns.

Stewart was caught with machine guns. He said the federal government didn't have jurisdiction over his machine guns since they weren't interstate commerce. Initially, the lower court agreed.

At the conclusion of the Raich marijuana case where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even if the marijuana wasn't involved in interstate commerce the federal government still had jurisdiction, the lower court then changed its mind and said that also applies to machine guns.