[Ken H]

What if no money was exchanged? Say I was the legal owner of a gun and gave it to somebody as a gift, either in Kansas or in any state. No money changed hands. Could the feds have anything to say about that, as things stand? Is that what the Raicha case means - that there doesn’t have to be any money involved?

Yes to your last 2 questions. Clarence Thomas's dissent in Raich:

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.

Like I said earlier, drug warriors cheered this decision.

[butterdezillion]

Why would this be argued under the Commerce Clause and not under the Elastic Clause? It makes no sense to me. Is it because one person using medical marijuana, perhaps in a confined situation, doesn’t stand to harm the “general welfare” since it is a private thing? From an anti-drug perspective, it could be argued that high people do pose a threat to the general well-being even if no money exchanges hands - if, for instance, they drive, vote, practice medicine, etc impaired. So why did they argue this using the Commerce Clause when no commerce was even involved? It makes no sense to me.

What year was that decision?

[palmer]

cross posting: Scalia v. Thomas (The noteworthy part of yesterday's ruling was the divergence between them)

[NELSON111]

Anything that weakens Federal Power...I support. Even if it is a State choosing to have legal Marijuana. I would vote against it in my state...even though I feel fairly certain alcohol is far more dangerous and leads to many more deaths...but a poke in the federal eye is a poke in the federal eye.