first familiarize himself with US vs Stewart and Gonzalez vs Raich.Stewart prevailed in the 9th Circuit - just one step below SCOTUS - going so far as to affirm that a convicted felon could make and own home-made machineguns, based solidly on the 2nd Amendment. The case was appealed to SCOTUS, which without discussion remanded the case for review in light of Raich (note that SCOTUS did not reverse Stewart, it just said Raich had to be taken into account).
Raich ruled that any action reducing demand in an illegal interstate market fit application of the Commerce Clause. This, of course, is absurd and must be revisited - what better revisiting than a state demanding independence of intra-state activity exercising a Constitutionally-protected right? Presumably Montana, as a state, can argue better and with more weight than a terminally ill grandmother growing a half-dozen plants for personal use.
Understanding these cases is indeed important. Doing so facilitates understanding the way to success; doing so does/should NOT be grounds for giving up.
Stewart prevailed in the 9th Circuit - just one step below SCOTUS - going so far as to affirm that a convicted felon could make and own home-made machineguns, based solidly on the 2nd Amendment.
No,
the original 9th Circuit opinion explicitly said that Stewart's 2nd amendment claim was rejected based on the then-current 9th Circuit "collective rights" interpretation of that amendment. He won because the 9th Circuit said that a homegrown machine gun for personal use is outside of the commerce clause authority. Also, the 9th Circuit AFFIRMED his conviction for felon in possession. Here is the last paragraph from that opinion:
[9] Finally, Stewart argues that the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to possess machineguns, as well as the right to possess firearms generally despite his former fel- ony conviction—as charged in count one of Stewart’s indict- ment. We have held that the Second Amendment “was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession.” Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, there is no Second Amendment limitation on “legislation regulating or prohibit- ing the possession or use of firearms.” Id. Stewart’s Second Amendment argument must therefore fail. We reverse Stew- art’s conviction for machinegun possession under section 922(o) as an unlawful extension of Congress’s commerce power and affirm his conviction for possession of firearms by a felon. AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
I agree that the legal interpretation of the commerce clause should be revisited, and that giving up is for losers, but think that people should understand that if they attempt to cross the feds on this one, they might just lose in court like Stewart and Raich before them.