Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tpaine
No mention of the gun issue.

What a stupidly false claim.

The Commerce Clause empowers Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. In Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), which made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." This was so because the act "neither regulate[d] a commercial activity nor contain[ed] a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1626. Proyect argues that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Lopez, and its renewed willingness to place limits on congressional power, render his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) invalid. We disagree.

131 posted on 01/12/2003 4:02:37 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]


To: Roscoe
Another Circuit Court decision knocking down the "drugs equal guns" assertion:
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.
Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.
https://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/november96/96-2060.html
124 posted on 01/12/2003 2:07 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


To: Roscoe
Inane. No mention of the gun issue. Try to keep focused roscoe.
129 posted on 01/12/2003 2:47 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 |

Find the 'gun issue' mentioned above in the quote.
Just who made the 'false stupid' claim is quite evident.
132 posted on 01/12/2003 4:19:36 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson