Replies

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.

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...

You have to understand the tortured logic of Raich. Because this guy built his own machine gun, he won't have to buy one (even a legal pre-ban version). Therefore, interstate commerce is affected, and the Commerce Clause applied.

You have too much knowledge of the subject, think too logically, and are thus a menace to society.

Report to the re-education facility immediately for a frontal lobotomy!

Ja, zey vill make a GOOD citizen of you.......

But there is no market in newly-manufactured machine guns.

And that's the sweet part for the gun grabbers. The whole rational for the National Firearms Act's legality (ignoring the Second Amendment of course) was that it was a tax law, passed under Congress power to tax. But once they, the government, stopped collecting that tax, the law should have become null and void as being beyond the delegated powers of Congress. It wasn't of course, except for a time in a single federal court district, and the "law" stands, even though it not only doesn't something Congress has not been granted power to do, it does something they have explicitly been forbidden to do.

At least in the MJ case, there is no *explict* right to smoke the Shiite enshrined in the Constitution.