Federal Gun and Drug Laws

[publiusF27]

Thanks for your reply, SS. I have heard that on the Democratic Underground board, you get immediately banned for putting the word "strict" in front of the word "constructionist," if you do not immediately follow them with an epithet you scarcely understand, such as "fascist."

But I figured that at Free Republic, questions about the original intent of our founding documents might just be OK.

[I got the rope]

Welcome to FR. Outstanding question! The founders are probably rolling in their graves right now...I know they never intended for firearms and ammo to be regulated much less TAXED!

It's an abomination much like the Poll Tax.

[publiusF27]

Thanks to all for the welcome.

Some of you might want a little more information about all this, so here goes:

Here is a pretty good speech about the older history of tax laws.

Here is the cert petition in which the Justice Department cites Wickard against Stewart, and asks that Stewart's fate rest on Raich's.

Here is a pretty good discussion of the Raich case. Here's an excerpt:

The Commerce Clause, in pertinent part, provides that Congress has the authority "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." At the time of the Framing, commerce was understood as "[i]ntercourse, exchange of one thing for another, interchange of anything; trade; traffick." (See Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (3d ed. 1765)). It was not understood to encompass local activities such as agriculture. By permitting Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the Framers did not contemplate restrictions on cannabis or any other home-grown crop. Instead, they sought to create a great free-trade zone within the United States. Alexander Hamilton predicted that an "unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions." Madison noted that the main purpose of the Commerce Clause "was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from improper contributions levied on them by the latter." In other words, the Framers sought to remove internal trade barriers. A nation-wide free trade zone, almost all agreed, would permit the states to take advantage of division of labor and lessen tensions as goods freely crossed borders. Lest anyone claim that the commerce power was a mechanism to interfere with local affairs, Hamilton specifically noted in Federalist No. 17 that the Commerce Clause would have no effect on "the administration of private justice . . . , the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature."

[SWAMPSNIPER]

There are various reasons for belonging to the Republican Party, and not all of them are concerned with the purity of the republican concept.
I am fiscally challenged enough to make a damn good democrat, but the Freedom thing just keeps Me hanging around. Start talking about limiting Freedom, for any reason, and I dig in and fight. It is not an issue subject to the vote.

---

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. " -- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

---

http://photobucket.com/albums/v244/tsiya/

[Know your rights]

I figured that at Free Republic, questions about the original intent of our founding documents might just be OK.

They haven't been explicitly banned yet ... but don't be surprised if this thread gets moved to a little-visited forum (Smoky Backroom or General/Chat).

[publiusF27]

Oops! Didn't mean to walk in the front door and fart really loudly! ;-)

Where is a guy supposed to go to ask these questions, anyway? I just figured this would be a good place to find strict constructionists who support the ATF and/or DEA and could answer my questions.

[billbears]

If you took back most of the nonsense that the national government does today back to the Framers, I think they would stop what they were doing and rewrite the Constitution to make it perfectly clear to Democrats and Republicans specifically how limited they meant the federal government to be.

[publiusF27]

I think they would go quite a bit further than that. If you've read what they had to say concerning the dangers of factions, I suspect that upon learning of the existence of our modern party structure, they would take steps to ensure that parties (they called them factions) would never gain the power they have today.

[P_A_I]

publiusF27; - FReeping since 4-23-05. - Toking since who knows when...

Later, dude.

______________________________________


DTogo; - FReeping since 12-12-03. - Gun/drug troll since who knows when..

Hypocrite bump.

[Navy Patriot]

Your plants need water.

[Freebird Forever]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. " -- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

That quote is worthy of saving to my hard drive. Do you have a link for it?

[publiusF27]

Thanks for reminding me! I've got over a hundred lychee trees here on the property, along with avocado, mango banana, tangelo, key lime, peach, mulberry, apple, carambola, longan, lemonquat, orange, grapefruit, guava, and probably some others I've forgotten, and yes, they do need attention. I lost about 500 orchids in hurricane Charley when my greenhouse went away, but the hundred or so I have left would like some water, and some fertilizer.

I'll be back when I run out of daylight. :D

[P_A_I]

-- the Bush Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to let the fate of the Raich case determine the fate of the Stewart case.
Isn't it funny when the wacky ninth circuit are playing the part of the strict constructionists, and the Bush administration is in the role of Constitution-stretching New Dealers, citing Wickard as they fight against Raich and Stewart?
Or am I just easily amused?

Those of us who support & defend the Constitution are not amused.
-- While Bush supporters do not want to discuss that issue.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I think I got it here, on the forum. Google the author by name, it will come up. Justice Kozinski is the real deal.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

http://notabug.com/kozinski/

[DTogo]

Gun troll? The venison in my freezer would take issue with that!

[P_A_I]

You have a strange way of showing your support for our Constitutional right to use guns & intoxicating substances then.

[billbears]

Of course but I've found when invoking the words of Washington's Farewell Address on that very issue one of two things happens. It usually goes over their heads or I get called a Democrat for just pointing out the Republicans have just as little respect for the Constitution as their counterparts

[DTogo]

I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and also disagree with the 21-year old drinking age in most states: if you're old enough to drive, vote, and serve in the armed forces, you should be old enough to drink. As for other "intoxicants," until we counter-balance such liberterian desires with proper education and laws to counter misuse/abuse, I think we have enough social problems with booze and tobacco.

[P_A_I]

Drug control, like gun control, is not about "libertarian desires"..

- It's about socialist control freaks who could care less about Constitutional liberties.

The "social problems" caused by prohibitional 'wars' on guns/drugs/whatever, far overshadow the problems caused by their misuse.