Posted on 02/21/2010 9:46:46 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
I don’t know that he worked for them but he appeared in a advertisement for H-S Precision. They caught ALOT OF HEAT and were really “Zotted” over that screwup.
From what I’d heard. Think that company is out of business. They
never got nor will get a dime from me.
Thanks. It’s best toget their nam right when they’re on your shit list!
States to BATFE:
Any BATFE agent interfering with state rights will be arrested, put on trial for treason, found guilty, and hung at dawn.
Which side were the domestic (state or individuals)"terrorists" on? Joe Starks "leaving his last pound of flesh" to the IRS, Dr. William Ayers and Dorn are defined by the T word.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). Here's another aspect of the Wickard case that is rarely noted. Filburn could have avoided the issue by not threshing the grain, and he could have known this before he harvested and processed his wheat crop. He could have fed his home-grown unthreshed "excess" grain to his own livestock; or even SOLD the unthreshed grain in interstate commerce, for that matter.
... the penalty is incurred and becomes due on threshing. Thus the penalty was contingent upon an act which appellee committed not before but after the enactment of the statute, and had he chosen to cut his excess and cure it or feed it as hay, or to reap and feed it with the head and straw together, no penalty would have been demanded. Such manner of consumption is not uncommon. Only when he threshed and thereby made it a part of the bulk of wheat overhanging the market did he become subject to penalty. He has made no effort to show that the value of his excess wheat consumed without threshing was less than it would have been had it been threshed while subject to the statutory provisions in force at the time of planting.This admission by the Supreme Court completely undercuts its earlier argument, as well as all of its justifications for finding the Act to be rational under the Commerce Clause. Specifically, consider the below statements by the Court, in light of the admission that Filburn could have avoided the penalty simply by skipping the threshing step.
It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market and if induced by rising prices tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown if wholly outside the scheme of regulation would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.
The way things are structured, both the federal government and the state government have jurisdiction over the individual. They call it “dual sovereignty.” The federal government does not have jurisdiction over the state.
The theory of state interposition is that somehow the state can get between the federal government and the individual. In this case, the state has said that it is exempting the individual from the jurisdiction of the federal government when the firearms are entirely manufactured and sold within the state. The state is presuming that the Constitutional authority of the federal government to regulate individuals involved in firearms manufacture and sales stems entirely from the Interstate Commerce Clause. The state is attempting to exempt firearms that are made and sold intrastate from federal jurisdiction by defining them as outside the stream of interstate commerce.
The feds are ignoring the state and telling the individuals that they will regulate them and, by implication, that the firearms and transactions are within the stream of the interstate commerce act or that they have the Constitutional authority to regulate based on some other enumerated power. The state law has the effect of being advisory only and the feds are telling the individuals it is bad advise.
I wonder if the state will defend the individual in court when he is arrested by federal agents for violation of the federal regulation. (And whatever you think, the Sheriff cannot prevent the feds from exercising their legitimate regulatory authority over an individual.) From my readings of prior SCOTUS interpretations of the Interstate Commerce authority, I think the state (if it goes to court) and individual will lose.
(This does not mean that I don’t think that the Court has gone off the moon in interpreting the powers of the Interstate Commerce Act.)
So, to me, the solution is to get folks in the White House and Senate who will appoint and confirm conservative 2nd Amendment judges. Or set up test cases to challenge Constitutionality in court. Or, I believe I read that a member of Congress can ask SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of a regulation. If that is so, we need more Congresspersons willing to put those questions to the court. We also need Congress to pass the act that requires that laws be rectified and referenced with appropraite Constitutional authority.
This has zero chance of going anywhere. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794 decide it.
Excise taxes levied on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms are accepted practice. Congress has decided all manufactured firearms will be assessed an excise tax. Additionally, machine guns, short barrel firearms, and other destructive devices are assessed an additional $200 excise.
Ruby Ridge was specifically about failure to pay a $200 tax stamp for a sawed of shotgun. Waco was about failure to pay $200 tax stamps for automatic weapons.
The Constitution’s commerce clause is not the locus of authority, it is excise tax from Article 1, Section 8.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Sorry, I was commenting on a much later case, with Roberts and Alito sided with the majority, Thomas and Scalia dissenting, wherein the court ruled that “medical marijuana” laws did not nullify federal laws against marijuana, even when a person grew marijuana for his own purposes.
I agree. The criminal case will be tried in a Federal Court. There have been cases of exactly this nature, and the Federal Courts have upheld and endorsed the conviction, provided the words "or affects interstate commerce" appear in the federal law, and are recited in the criminal complaint.
-- So, to me, the solution is to get folks in the White House and Senate who will appoint and confirm conservative 2nd Amendment judges. Or set up test cases to challenge Constitutionality in court. Or, I believe I read that a member of Congress can ask SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of a regulation. --
I believe one of the state-rights states has filed an action for declaratory judgment. That will uphold the federal limitations on RKBA as superior over the state. There is no such thing as a "conservative 2nd amendment federal court." I've read quite a few of the relevant cases, and my conclusion (and it is easy as pie to reach) is that the Courts jurisprudence on 2nd amendment matters is corrupt. It is not based on logic or reason, it is based on force and only on force. Recent case, Hamblen in the 6th Circuit argued that the Supreme Court misconstrued Miller, when SCOTUS decided the Heller case. Hamblen argued how the Heller decision misstated the Miller case, inasmuch as Heller is used to uphold the 1934 NFA. IOW, Hamblen said, "The Heller Court used Miller to uphold the 1934 NFA, but Miller doesn't uphold the 1934 NFA." The 6th Circuit's "reasoned" rebuttal? "The Heller Court upheld the 1934 NFA." Silent treatment, non-response to his argument that Heller got Miller wrong.
There is ZERO chance that SCOTUS will take up Hamblen's case. What are they going to do, admit they are corrupt? Hah.
I predict the sham will end with an effectively disarmed populace in about two or three generations. I don't see any move by the feds to relax any of the unconstitutional laws now on the books.
Are you thinking of Gonzales v. Raich? "Respondent Monson cultivates her own marijuana ..."
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part III. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
O'Connor's dissent is basically that the logic of Raich eviscerates the Gun-Free-School-Zones case, Lopez. She may or may not have been aware that Lopez was already eviscerated, and in any case, here general approach to "following the law" is to make policy decision, and effectively take over "making the law" into a form that suits her personal sensibilities.
Thomas's dissent cuts to the core of the issue, but if adopted, would put wide swaths of federal legislation and regulation on the junk heap (where they belong, but that's another matter entirely).
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Commerce clause aside, the Supreme Court has not met a federal gun regulation that it does not approve of. After it held the Gun_Free-School-Zone act to be "too much," Congress rewrote the act to include the phrase "or affects interstate commerce." Post-Lopez indictments on the new and improved GFSZ Act have been upheld. SCOTUS denies cert when those cases come before it.
Directly to the intersection of guns and the Raich decision, see the 9th Circuit Stewart case, which was decided under order to the 9th Circuit, from SCOTUS, to find Stewart in violation of federal gun regulations for possession of a homemade machine-gun - SCOTUS told the 9th Circuit to "follow Raich."
Actually, his name is Lon Horiuchi.
Yes, the ATF first-level managers were calling it a "ZBO" -- for "Zee Beeg One", a budget-cycle stunt raid intended to show footage of lots of scary-looking Kalashnikovs and Barret rifles stacked on a table and weeping-weenie Davidians being perp-walked to federal prison by barrel-chested ATF champions.
Remember, though, that Waco was planned on 41's watch by the same ATF that had tried to entrap Randy Weaver, leading to the Ruby Ridge siege.
And always remember that 41 resigned from the NRA rather than brook criticism of what was done by ATF on his watch in his name.
There is a book-length study of firearms policy under 41 -- the real policy, not the political one -- waiting to be written. And useful inferences drawn.
“As far as I know, Horiuchi has a good paying job with the BATFE. IIRC, he was promoted after his action at Ruby Ridge.”
He didn’t work for the BATFE. He was an FBI Hostage Rescue Team guy.
Ironic.
At any rate, as far as I know, he's still a tax-paid employee, and if I recall correctly, he was promoted after his action at Ruby Ridge.
No way man, they are both marxists so they have to be patriots.
\
They should both have been shot, still should be.
Gubbbermint workers can very energetic and entrepreneurial when it comes to enlarging their fiefdoms, getting more money for their fiefdoms and securing bloated pensions and benefits
“raise you one Montana National Guard.’”
And tens of thousands of armed concerned citizens that live within a days drive of Montana!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.