[The KG9 Kid]

We need an acronym we can fall back on over the next few months which helps us quickly declare 'Who knows what they'll do?', but 'WKWTD' doesn't have a lot of flair.

Since you and I seem to be on the same wavelength here, try this one on for size:

In my state's Federal circuit court, we have the Stewart Ruling -- United States v. Stewart (2003). In Stewart the 9th Circuit Court held that homemade machine guns can not be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause since they did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The ruling was appealed to SCOTUS in 2005 and they vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, remanding the case back to the court for further consideration in light of its recent ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 2005.

SCOTUS ruled in Raich that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to ban homegrown marijuana; the implication of the Court's vacation is that Congress also has the power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns even though they were never involved in a commercial transaction.

Guess who the petitioner for US vs. Stewart is? Solicitor General Paul D. Clement.

Since 2004, there has been no resolution on US vs. Stewart.

Ponder this for awhile and tell me what you think it means.

[Hunble]

In my state's Federal circuit court, we have the Stewart Ruling -- United States v. Stewart (2003). In Stewart the 9th Circuit Court held that homemade machine guns can not be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause since they did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The ruling was appealed to SCOTUS in 2005 and they vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, remanding the case back to the court for further consideration in light of its recent ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 2005.

Can we use the 2nd to invalidate the abuses of the "commerce clause?"

Trying to think ahead to the next step.