Replies

You see how this works? SCOTUS when it operates correctly (regardless of the decision it renders), is as narrow as possible in scope. I don't care in the least if the judges are liberal or conservative: I want judges that are absolutely explicitely clear on the implicite and tacit repercussions with respect to stare decisis their opions will entail.

They held the Shreveport Rate case as precedent for Congress regulating intrastate commerce in Wickard. I'm trying to figure out when Filburn suddenly became a registered carrier of interstate commerce.

Well, I love how the Constitution works (when they let it do so). I'm adament against ammendments to it.

I'm unclear about Paulsen's "not seeing it", or what. All I know is I've presented evidence that SCOTUS has deliberately stayed out of the fray with respect to Second Ammendment, and Stewart screwed up in that regard (he didn't contest infringement). Furthermore, precedent is absolutely clear that relief absolutely needs to be filed in an expediently fashion.

All I'm saying is that if one is going up against firearms charges for "machine-guns" (for crying out loud - Denny Craine - he'd be out as we speak), as opposed to something nepharious like switchblades, or flash-bangs, or weapons such as chloroacetophenone, ortho-chlorobenzylidene-malononitrile, and dibenz (b,f)-1,4-oxazepine, one doesn't argue "commerce clause".

I would argue the pictures I posted. But while not irrelevent, its utterly immaterial: the man in question will not hold a firearm as portrayed in the above pictures any time in the immediate forseeable future (partly because he was in violation of NFA 1939), but predominantly because he put a hit on a judge while in jail because of his case.

The contrast in the arguments on this thread with what is going on outside my window is most astonishing. What I hear outside my window at this very moment makes me think back to the early 80's when I was training in Reagan's military. Based on what I seen on UTube, I could easily conjecture that the sounds might be uncanilly similar to something more pertainant. If I was unbalanced, I'd be needing a little somthing right about now.

We don't need to curtail Congress' power, we need members of Congress that can Curtail themselves. Let me ask you:

Do you have the money to get elected? And if so, how much can you pay me to like you (see FL's Harris/Nelson campaign). Now, once I like you, how well can you resist the money I shovel at you to do my bidding?

Dude, you, your associates, and I went toe concerning this matter on a previous thread. Why are you asking me this (you know exactly my position)?

I'm arguing that the issue of contention that the merits of the commerce clause - as previously argued at great length - are not only immaterial but outright irrelevant with regards to this particular matter.

We're not arguing the constitutionality of the commerce clause (you'll lose), but its appication respecting the Second Ammendment; if any part of the BOR is let go, the whole thing'll be encroached based on legal precedent.

"I'm trying to figure out when Filburn suddenly became a registered carrier of interstate commerce."

Well, see! Now it all makes sense.

You think the Commerce Clause only allows Congress to regulate the carriers of commerce. If they're not a registered carrier, and Filburn is not, you think Congress is not constitutionally empowered to regulate.