"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.
DustyMoment wrote:
Not sure I'm making that connection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The connection was explained here:
FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts
--- Not that a lot of those here 'got it'.
The connection is that both ruling say that the federal government can regulate things, under the Interstate Commerce clause, that are not interstate commerce, nor even intrastate commerce, that is not commerce at all. Of course that goes back to the Roosevelt era, when they ruled that a farmer could be punished under federal law for growing grain, with a federal "allocation", that he did not sell in interstate commerce, but rather fed to his own livestock, because in not buying the grain, he "affected" interstate commerce in grain.