Posted on 09/29/2011 9:35:55 AM PDT by LonelyCon
Justice Scalia said otherwise, in the Raich decision.
And a fellow by the name of Stewart was jailed for possession of an unregistered machine gun that he made himself (I think from scratch), that never left his house. Funny case, that one, as the 9th Circuit said the weapon was not involved in interstate commerce, so he (Stewart) was not afoul of federal law. The US Supreme Court told the 9th Circuit to apply Raich in order to find him guilty.
BS, try that argument with the jailer, not me, but he does not care either.
And in the heirarchy of government powers within the republic, which court is authorized to make that determination?
The SCOTUS, including Scalia, disagree. And since their opinion is law, that's that.
Your “screw original intent” arguments are going to win lots of converts, I’m sure.
“Can you sell me a gun if I answer “Yes” to any of these questions?”
The guy answered. “No.”
Without reading any more of the questions he marked them all “No”.
I recommend the same course of action.
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person - ...(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); ...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
The cite Y-Yo provided was a prohibition on transfer, this one is a prohibition on possession.
-- It takes a felony conviction to lose your right to possess a handgun here. --
That or a misdemeanor Domestic Violence convction (18 USC 922(g)(9)), or under a restraining order pertaining to a family member (18 USC 922(g)(8)).
It's still illegal. State law is trumped by Federal law:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The SCOTUS upheld Federal control of drugs, even if it is not interstate commerce, just a few years ago:
That is why some goverors, such as Brewer and Christie, have been hesitant to implement their states' med. marijuana laws. All participants, including doctors, state officials, and end-users, and violating federal law and subject to prosecution.
Isn’t this up to the individual states? I believe that here in California, if you have been drinking and are carrying a weapon, you can lose your permit. Not sure of this, but if you are on drugs, wouldn’t the same rule apply?
“If I had a brother who was a violent ex-con, and also took medical marijuana, it would be the same.”
You believe his 2nd Amendment rights are more important than public safety.
That, Beelzy, is why Libertarians will never be a majority political party.
Not true. Question #12a requires a ‘Yes’ answer.
Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?
You can believe that if you want to.
In California, from what I heard (haven't yet purchased a firearm from a dealer here in CA) they made the form “idiot proof” in formulating the questions such that “No” was the correct answer to all of the questions.
Or maybe it just made a better story that way! That is the trouble with recounting hearsay. ;)
Your anger appears to be misplaced. The only reason American drug users are funding criminals is because the American government has chosen to criminalize the drugs in question. American drug users could be funding entrepreneurial types who could then employ people who could then pay taxes. But you are correct, they are funding vile and vicious criminals.
As for the drug users' motivation, I suggest you worry about your own troubles. Some guy getting high on his own time should be his business, in my opinion.
And for the record, I do not use any illegal drugs. I just think we have very poor policy regarding drug use.
>Druggies will beg borrow and steal to try and put their drug usage in a debate. Sorry Illegal is illegal.
Yes, and the prohibition on marijuana is illegal; there is even the precedent of the 18th and 21st amendments to back this up, but the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution the authority to regulate marijuana, tobacco, firearms, or alcohol.
IOW the ATF is proof that the federal government is felonious: see US Code Title 18, Sec 241 & 242.
>Technically, even prescription drugs are “controlled substances”. It sounds like they could adminstratively declare it also applies to anyone taking any kind of prescription medication if they want to.
Well, if you want to be technical water is controlled (via EPA) therefore it is a controlled substance... and aren’t you addicted (as in deprived of it you’ll claim that you’re dying) to it?
{Yes, I see the Beurarchy as that messed-up.}
I think it is good policy to not give people with a drug brain guns.
Stupidity is our most expensive commodity.
You are, unfortunately, mistaken. The USSC ruled that marijuana grown in one state for personal use DOES have an impact on interstate commerce. Absurd, but they did. The case involved 2 woman in the bay area of CA I believe, who grew a couple of plants for their own use. No evidence they ever sold any or gave any away. Still, USSC ruled against them on IC clause.
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.