FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/01/2002 7:16:59 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
The courts don't share your myopia. As the 2nd Circuit noted:
The Supreme Court in Lopez further explained that it struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act because:Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.
Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1630-31 (footnote omitted). The difference between this and the manufacture and distribution of controlled substances is striking. These activities are commercial by their very nature. Indeed, in upholding a different section of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 846), we recently noted that, in contrast to the statute invalidated in Lopez, "[t]he Controlled Substances Act concerns an obviously economic activity." Genao, 79 F.3d at 1337.
It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.
Tobacco products, fatty foods, SUVs, and french fries could be made illicit in a matter of moments on a federal level by one stroke of the congressional pen, just like marijuana was made illicit in 1937 by the Marijuana Tax Act. There is no substance to your counter-argument.
Drugs dealers would be well advised to avoid armed confrontations with police officers.
Let me get this straight: because marijuana was involved, you have no problem with a paramilitary police officer gunning down a person in his or her home when that person may not have been armed???? Are you quite sure you're not just flexing your internet toughguy muscles here?
It seems to me that because you don't like "druggies," you don't give a sh*t what happens to one of them. Why don't we just leave it at that, because that's the kind of quality argument I seem to be getting from you.
Roscoe is great at finding things in Supreme Court arguments. He's pathetic at applying them. Appellate lawyers who monitor Free Republic dream of facing someone like Roscoe in court.
Facts notwithstanding.
Breaking the law isn't illegal???
That's a pretty strange arguement.
growing and smoking marijuana has no victim.
All kinds of victims in this article, ranging from the perps to the perp's family who lost their loved one.
What kind of idiot would come down the steps brandishing a 9mm handgun when the police SWAT team is making a drug bust?
Only a complete moroon whose judgement is severely impaired by drug addiction.
As an adult, he certainly should have know better.
It is certainly no secret that illicit drug abuse is against the law.
And it is certainly no secret as to the potential consequences of resisting arrest with the use of a firearm.
This poor sucker chose to break the law anyway. Tough noogies for him.
Ping me when it happens.
2nd Circuit.
Read a book.
Your opinion of what the "facts" are notwithstanding.
Big whoop. So you're a libertarian anarchist who hides behind the Constitution to subvert law enforcement and allow the criminal element of our society to run rampant. What else is new?
I'll know you when I see you because you'll be the one with the blindfold on and the earplugs in your ears.
And some here wonder why there is a lack of support for certain branches of law enforcement. These particular pukes are no better than Hitler's Gestapo.
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.