Skip to comments.
High court's Calif. pot ruling also outlaws homemade machine guns
modbee ^
| 7/1/6
| paul elias
Posted on 07/01/2006 7:19:16 AM PDT by LouAvul
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 401 next last
1
posted on
07/01/2006 7:19:19 AM PDT
by
LouAvul
To: LouAvul
The Republic is dead. Government is now legitimated and pursued via the Commerce clause. The remainder of the Constitution is subordinate and immaterial.
2
posted on
07/01/2006 7:23:10 AM PDT
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com)
To: LouAvul
Once again, gun bans and marijuana prohibiton are found bound together. The law banning the posession of a machine gun without having a virtually unobtainable tax stamp was the model for the Marijuana Tax Act back in the '30's.
3
posted on
07/01/2006 7:28:07 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: LouAvul
The court said homegrown marijuana confined to the state still can affect the entire national market for the drug, allowing for federal regulation.The $22 in my pocket can still affect the entire national economy, too. I guess I'm subject to the commerce clause, too.
4
posted on
07/01/2006 7:29:42 AM PDT
by
300winmag
(Overkill never fails)
To: LouAvul
I think it is the Interstate Commerce clause that also insists we have to import garbage from other states into PA and from Canada into the USA. Maybe it is time to repeal that sucker.
5
posted on
07/01/2006 7:35:18 AM PDT
by
finnsheep
To: 300winmag
Yes, even if you didn't want that job in NYC, you could still go there and take it at any time, thus opening the door to regulation of your every move.
6
posted on
07/01/2006 7:37:06 AM PDT
by
donmeaker
(If the sky don't say "Surrender Dorothy" then my ex wife is out of town.)
To: finnsheep
I propose that an amendment to restrict the silly application of interstate commerce rules to intrastate commerce would be a much better use of time for the Congress than a "Marriage" amendment.
7
posted on
07/01/2006 7:38:43 AM PDT
by
donmeaker
(If the sky don't say "Surrender Dorothy" then my ex wife is out of town.)
To: donmeaker
I propose that an amendment to restrict the silly application of interstate commerce rules to intrastate commerce would be a much better use of time for the Congress than a "Marriage" amendment.That's going to put the jobs of a lot of beltway bureaucrats at risk, and they have better access to your representatives than you do.
8
posted on
07/01/2006 7:40:28 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: LouAvul
High court's Calif. pot ruling also outlaws homemade machine gun
Not sure I'm making that connection. But, this is CA, the center of the universe for the loony left.
9
posted on
07/01/2006 7:43:15 AM PDT
by
DustyMoment
(FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
To: tacticalogic
That's a feature, not a bug.
10
posted on
07/01/2006 7:43:25 AM PDT
by
donmeaker
(If the sky don't say "Surrender Dorothy" then my ex wife is out of town.)
To: donmeaker
That's a feature, not a bug.And RTM as soon as it'll compile.
11
posted on
07/01/2006 7:47:51 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: DustyMoment
"But, this is CA, the center of the universe for the loony left."
You don't get the connnection? Well, two items produced and consumed locally (the guns were never for sale, the pot was smoked where it was grown) are found subject to laws that regulate state - to - state transactions. I hope that helps.
As far as being from the loony left, the loony left in CA voted to legalize this use of marijuana. So it would be a case of misapplication of the Commerce clause by the US Supreme court, or as you succinctly put it, the loony right.
12
posted on
07/01/2006 7:58:28 AM PDT
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com)
To: tacticalogic
Once again, gun bans and marijuana prohibiton are found bound together.
To: gcruse
It's called an Oligarchy
14
posted on
07/01/2006 8:28:53 AM PDT
by
ATOMIC_PUNK
( have long feared that my sins would return to visit me and the cost would be more than I could bear)
To: philman_36
It's sort of a triad now. The islamofascists, gun grabbers, and drug warriors each pursue their own 'death to America.'
15
posted on
07/01/2006 8:30:02 AM PDT
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com)
To: LouAvul
The judges unanimously ruled Friday that Stewart's guns "might bleed into the interstate market and affect supply and demand" and that such items can be federally regulated "especially in an area where Congress regulates comprehensively."
But there is no market in newly-manufactured machine guns.
16
posted on
07/01/2006 8:55:35 AM PDT
by
andyk
(Go Matt Kenseth!)
To: tacticalogic
The point is, we need to win this one despite the bureaucrats, in an "in your face" manner, to make sure the bureaucrats and fellow travelers know that Civil Servant is not "Civil Master".
Bob Heinlein would smile. If we can't win that one,
17
posted on
07/01/2006 9:28:18 AM PDT
by
donmeaker
(If the sky don't say "Surrender Dorothy" then my ex wife is out of town.)
To: LouAvul
I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone. In the Medical Marijuana case the court actually decided to protect organized crime from unfair competition by an honest citizen.
Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that home grown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the home grown weed would affect overall production of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well financed, often violent drug gangs.
Think about it...They actually argued that home grown weed would affect the inter state commerce of "violent drug gangs"...It would reduce their commerce! So the feds are claiming purview over home grown weed because it would unfairly reduce the inter state trade of violent drug gangs!
Will the court need to prohibit guns to protect the violent drug gangs from armed citizens?
.
18
posted on
07/01/2006 9:36:32 AM PDT
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: andyk
I guess I would argue this point. In my mind there is a hugh market for new machine guns. Unfortunately congress in their attempts to destroy the constitution, have made it illegal for citizens to own "new" machine guns, old ones pre-1986 are OK, later ones are not.
All those who have the power and mandate to hinder your ownership and possession of such weapons, are not restricted in any way as to their use, and possession, as you the citizen are, but I guess in reality their ownership is also restricted.
IOW's government is not restricted in it's ownership, but you the citizen are, and yet, it seems to me the individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, vis-a-vis the second amendment, though challenged by many, has never been denied, except when government steps in to do so.
IMHO, when facing it's own citizens, the government has a mandate to be undergunned, and when facing the enemies of it's citizens, just the opposite applies. At present, the opposite seems to be the standard, where the citizens are concerned. Hence...
19
posted on
07/01/2006 10:07:27 AM PDT
by
wita
(truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
To: mugs99
Will the court need to prohibit guns...Congress has done it already, in the case of certain guns so the court doesn't have to.
20
posted on
07/01/2006 10:10:52 AM PDT
by
wita
(truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 401 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson