The price charged for donuts, sluprees and some brands of hot dogs ...
III. Commerce Clause The district court rejected Emerson's contention that, in enacting section 922(g)(8), Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause. As the district court noted, this Court has held that, because section 922(g)(8) only criminalizes the possession of firearms or ammunition "in or affecting commerce" and the reception of firearms that have been "shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce", Congress did not exceed its Article I, Section 8 powers in enacting it. United States v. Pierson, 139 F.3d 501, 503 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 220 (1998). Accordingly, the district court, as bound by this precedent as we are, did not err in denying Emerson's motion to dismiss the indictment on Commerce Clause grounds.So anything that has ever shipped in interstate commerce is subject to federal regulation. Everyone in Texas, based on this ruling, ought to be rebarreling their post-1994 AR-15s with bayonet lugs. We need average, law-abiding Citizens of the several States to be charged with simple possession of a "prohibited" arm. Then they'll have to say that the government's interest in regualting commerce among the States is sufficient to deprive second amendment rights. Remember, the commerce clause is the nexus they use to extend their legislative reach into the several States in the first place.
BTW - I vote to have the original _Jim back. He drew attention to all the important issues and defended the indefensible (or made a futile attempt to). This kinder gentler _Jim is so, well, blah.
Come on - tell us why schippers is all wet.