Posted on 07/01/2006 7:19:16 AM PDT by LouAvul
That's the third time (or so) you said "it would be fatal" Why?
This was an actual kit purchased from Stewart and assembled by an expert. Why would it be "fatal" to fire a live round? Are you saying all these kits were flawed?
"Remember, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency."
Nice jingo, but wrong. The BATF is nothing more than a tax collection agency. They issue licenses and collect fees. If Stewart should be able to get away with not paying taxes, then maybe Enron shouldn't have to pay either.
Really? To me, it shows just how far Congress is willing to go to control our lives. The difference between us is that you believe the solution lies with the courts and I believe it lies with the people.
Maybe you think Congress shouldn't be regulating machine guns. Maybe you think that those who are (21?, 18?, 16?, any age?) have the right to go to Wal-Mart and buy a full-auto MAC-10. And maybe you think the second amendment protects this right.
Fine. Then I can understand why you believe that Congress is overreaching.
But, IF you believe that Congress may regulate the interstate commerce of machine guns, then you must concede they also have the power to regulate those activities that interfere with them doing that. Pure and simple.
In the Stewart case, it is reasonable to assume that he and (500?, 1000?, 10,000?)other guys building functional machine guns in their basements would have an impact on Congress' ability to regulate the interstate commerce of machine guns.
Now, you can play these wink-wink, nudge-nudge games from here to Sunday, you can say "but they're for his own use, you have no proof" all day long, but a reasonable person would say those five machine guns were for sale, especially considering the fact that he was engaged in the unlicensed sales of other unassembled guns to the general public. To anyone with the money.
So, it comes down to "Should Congress be regulating machine guns or shouldn't they"? You can't honestly say "yes" and then allow every Tom, Dick, and Bob Stewart to build them in their basements.
Ummmmm. Boy, that's a good one. Hmmmmm. What to do, what to do?
Well, you got me there. I don't have a clue.
Yes, I mistyped. I meant to type "theory," not "clause."
Not really. The principle was introduced in 1914 (20 years before FDR) in the The Shreveport Rate Cases:
"It is for Congress to supply the needed correction where the relation between intrastate and interstate rates presents the evil to be corrected, and this it may do completely, by reason of its control over the interstate carrier in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that it is necessary or appropriate to exercise the control for the effective government of that commerce."
"Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the state, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority, and the state, and not the nation, would be supreme within the national field."
Granted, Shreveport concerned carriers of commerce not the commerce itself, but prior courts ruled that Congress may regulate the carriers.
Shreveport, I believe, was the first case when the USSC mention both "a close and substantial relation" and "necessary or appropriate". The two phrases are used in conjunction to regulate intrastate activities.
You are correct when you say the Commerce Clause only allows Congress to regulate a)commerce that b) crosses state lines. That is the only power given to Congress by the Commerce Clause. BUT, Congress also has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to legislate those activities (not necessarily commerce) that "substantially affect" their ability to execute their other powers -- in this case, regulating interstate commerce.
"[T]he New Deal Court’s own constitutional justification for its radical expansion of the scope of federal power over commerce was that the congressional measures in question were valid exercises of the power granted by the Necessary and Proper Clause and were not direct exercises of the power to regulate commerce among the several states. That is, the Court did not simply and directly enlarge the scope of the Commerce Clause itself, as is often believed. Rather, it upheld various federal enactments as necessary and proper means to achieve the legitimate objective of regulating interstate commerce."
-- Stephen Gardbaum, Rethinking Constitutional Federalism, 74 Tex. L. Rev. 795, 807-08 (1996)
Other than Miller, do you have any other cases that challenge the federal firearm laws as a violation of the Second Amendment? I know of none.
"They no longer have that power, the people took it back.
Section 1 of the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. That put everything back to where it was before the 18th was passed, correct? And you say the government, before the 18th, had no power to regulate/prohibit alcohol within the states.
Then why Section 2 of the 21st amendment, removing the power to regulate alcohol from the federal government and returning that power exclusively to the states? In other words, why remove a power you say the government didn't have?
Under the Commerce Clause, you are correct.
But the courts have ruled that if some intrastate activity (not necessarily commerce) has a substantial effect on Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce (which you admit), then Congress may use the power given to them by the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation controlling that intrastate activity.
Certainly you can see that without this power Congress would be unable to regulate (in this case) the interstate commerce of machine guns. Why even give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce to begin with if the states, or individuals, could so easily undermine and subvert it?
I'm resposing to this separately because it's really a separate issue.
I would really like to see a second amendment challenge to the federal statute regulating machine guns in front of the USSC. I believe the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear machine guns as part of a militia from federal infringement, and that it is unconstitutional for Congress to regulate them under this interpretation of the second amendment.
Now, if you believe, somehow, that the second amendment protects an individual right from federal infringement, then the federal regulation of machine guns is a "reasonable" restriction.
So, what is it? Does the second amendment protect an individual right or a collective right (ie., as part of a militia)?
You should know that every lower federal court in every second amendment case (except one court in one case) has ruled that the second amendment only protects a collective right from federal infringement.
So, maybe we should be careful what we wish for. We may get our day in court and find that the USSC agrees with with the overwhelming majority of the lower courts.
They're not violating the Constitution with regards to machine guns, so you can stop right there.
"where they are attempted to regulate "parts" which the law, and their own regulations, define as "non guns".
Stewart wasn't about his sales of the .50 cal. kits. So what are you referring to?
"If they can do that, they "ban 'em all" and declare "turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America"
They don't have the votes.
Yes they are. Every single one of them. And?
So the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations did not give the federal government the power to restrict it? The power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes did not give the federal government the power to restrict it?
Madison was Secretary of State when President Jefferson did both and he didn't say squat.
"The power to regulate commerce among the several states is granted to congress in terms as absolute as is the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations."
-- Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622 (1885)
What's interesting to note is that we have three virtually identical cases (ie., legally identical): Wickard (wheat), Raich (drugs), and Stewart, (machine guns) -- the first is considered "reasonable" the others are not.
That, I don't understand, El Gato.
That is exactly what the 2nd says, paulsen, even though you deny it.
"Keep & bear arms" means we can carry them, in ordinary english.
Doesn't the 2nd apply to everyone?
Why, then, don't all states protect concealed carry?
Because they are allowed to so infringe by the fed court system, which agrees with the weird idea that the 2nd does not apply to States. -- As you well know.
-- Why do you refuse to admit that the 2nd is part of our supreme law?
The people decide, when writing their constitution, which rights will be protected and to what extent.
That theory is a total fabrication.. Unsupportable.
Can you tell us paulsen; -- which rights are not protected in those enumerated by "life, liberty or property"?
And the 'extent' by which rights can regulated are also enumerated by the constitutions clear limits on the power of governments at all levels. Correct?
Please, to quote you: "-- lets settle this once and for all --".
Can you make a rational response instead of using your usual tactic of ignoring questions you don't want to answer?
Typically paulsen, you've again ignored my questions above in order to 'answer' others with your stock patter of rulings & findings from gov't sources that agree with your basic positions.
-- You have no real intention of "settling this", do you?
Could it be that your real intention here is to agit-prop the gov't view on its 'power to prohibit'?
"Hmmmmmmm"?
Fisherman's Wharf is a huge out-of-state tourist attraction. Good luck trying to separate the legal activities from the illegal ones.
"So they opened a little storefront to serve a few people in the Bay area."
Did you know that it is illegal to sell medical marijuana in California? If the state authorities will turn a blind eye to this, why would they care if the store sold to recreational users from out-of-state?
"Big deal, it's still a drop in the ocean compared to the black market"
"That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial."
-- Wickard v Filburn
"Sandra Day O'Connor is a "she" but that's not important."
Hey, take your victories where you can get them. You're not having much luck debating the actual issues.
"See any evidence of implication by legislative design that regulating intrastate activity is essential?"
The 1990 Lopez case said the Gun-Free Schools Act was unconstitutional. The 922(q) statute you listed is the new 1996 language. That has not yet been challenged, and may pass U.S. Supreme Court muster. What's your point here?
Time after time. Post after post. That's all you got. And it's either that or some direct quote from the U.S. Constitution -- like quoting "due process" and "life, liberty and property" is actually an intellectual response.
Make a point. Back it up with a link. Then I'll respond. Otherwise, it's like arguing with a 6-year-old who always responds "because".
The people decide, when writing their constitution, which rights will be protected and to what extent.
That theory is a total fabrication.. Totally unsupportable.
Can you tell us paulsen; -- which rights are not protected in those enumerated by "life, liberty or property"?
Typically paulsen, you've again ignored my questions above in order to 'answer' others with your stock patter of rulings & findings from gov't sources that agree with your basic positions.
-- You have no real intention of "settling this", do you?
Could it be that your real intention here is to agit-prop the gov't view on its 'power to prohibit'?
Why respond to you with the facts
There you go again. Your 'facts' are gov't 'rulings & findings' [opinions] from gov't sources that agree with your basic positions. --- Opinions are not facts.
when your standard response is, "Yeah, but it's unconstitutional and the feds/courts are allowing that to continue".
That is indeed the fact. - Our constitutions clear words are facts, facts that you cannot address or refute.
Time after time. Post after post. That's all you got.
And all you've got are self serving gov't opinions, opinions that are easily refuted by the words of our Constitution.
And it's either that or some direct quote from the U.S. Constitution -- like quoting "due process" and "life, liberty and property" is actually an intellectual response.
What other response can be made to those like you who reject basic constitutional principles?
Make a point. Back it up with a link. Then I'll respond.
My points are, and have been made and backed up by many links over the years. You ignore them regardless of links..
Otherwise, it's like arguing with a 6-year-old who always responds "because".
Yep paulsen, one of your many fall-back positions when pressed is to call your opponents juvenile.
Get some new arguments, -- learn to back up your anti-constitutional positions ["The people decide, when writing their constitution, which rights will be protected and to what extent."] with facts, not opinions.
The .50 BMG is a powerful, high pressure round. It generates about 56,000 psi when fired, acros about 3/4s of a square inch of the back of the cartridge.
The bolt has to precisely match grooves in the back of the barrel, to contain those pressures.
If you don't do that right, then the bolt will recoil at several hundred feet per second.
Of course a caridge case with hust a primer in it generates about 10 PSI. A really sloppy job of grinding the bolt or barrel grooves will contain that, say, using a dremel moto tool to grind the teeth right off the bolt.
Does that help?
As I recall, Stewart wasn't in front of the judge for paying taxes.
If Stewart was not selling guns, then he was not liable for the ATF taxes on guns.
The bad definition of "Gun" is what made him subject to ATF jurisdiction.
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.