High court's Calif. ruling outlaws homemade machine guns

[Kharn]

cpileri:
This wasnt a new trial, just an appeal.

Kharn

 

[MudPuppy]

Even God doesn't hold you as a sinner until you actually think about doing something bad.

Oh, now I know you don't consider the US Gov and SCOTUS in the same league as our creator.

But, you make a good point. What I found ridiculous was how many people thought the movie The Minority Report was so far fetched...it's here.

 

[publius]

Woody,

Kozinski explained in his opinion that there was no need to prove an effect on interstate commerce, since the majority stated in Raich that they needed only to find that Congress could reasonably have believed there would be an effect on commerce they were trying to regulate. Declaring the need for proof, as you suggested, would not be deciding the case "in light of Raich" but instead would be in direct defiance of Raich. A good way to get your judgement vacated.

cpileri,
Two trials for the same criminal offense would be double jeopardy, but multiple appeals of the same trial are not.

 

[ctdonath]

Not double jeopardy - appeal.

Stewart won, but the US appealed the verdict, won the appeal, and now a lower court was told to review the case in light of the appeal verdict. Basically a higher court said "you can't resolve it that way, try again".

 

[cordex]

Hmmm ...

We can't beat this, folks. The ICC is too deeply ingrained in our system. If just one of our branches of government was against the abuse of the ICC, we might have a chance, but they all love it. If either of the major parties was against the abuse of the ICC we might have a chance, but they both think it's the best thing since sliced bread and they get giddy just thinking about the things they can do with it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Another thing I find strange is the Court sending Stewarts case back down to include a decision it refused to hear in the first place(Silveira v. Lockyear). Is the Supreme Court going to let a lower court set a precedent and follow it as if it were the final word? They have done nothing less here.

No, that is not what happened here. The court just directed him to review the decision in light of the recent decision in Raich. In his earlier decision, Kozinski had relied on some of the court's rulings limiting the commerce clause. If Raich is applied, then the commerce clause argument no longer supports Stewart. The court did not tell Kozinski to use Silveira v. Lockyer; but because that is still good precedent in the 9th Circuit, Kozinski must use it - so he cannot find a 2nd Amendment win for Stewart based on those grounds, even if he would probably like to.

Kozinski was told to review the case in light of Raich v. Gonzales. What would have kept Kozinski from doing that and finding it inapplicable? The Court didn't vacate his ruling, as I understand, stepped upon their own US v. Lopez to justify Raich v. Gonzales without any evidence that the marijuana grown would have effected IC, meaning it would have to have been proven that these people woud have bought marijuana if they hadn't grown their own, when in fact they waited for it to be legal to grow their own by Califorina law. Without such proof, there is no evidence these people would have bought marijuana. It is no different for Stewart. There is no proof that Stewart would have bought a machine gun had he not built his own.

Lopez established two different tests depending on whether the activity was commerical (easier test) or non-commercial (more difficult test). What happened in Raich v. Gonzales is the court (specifically Scalia) said "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially effect interstate commerce." Scalia justified this on the grounds of the necessary and proper clause. The test was changed with Scalia saying Congress could regulate local activities that were non-commercial if it was necessary to accomplish purposes that were commercial (restricting trade in drugs in that case)

publius gave a good explanation about Raich. Any decision finding that Raich didn't apply to Stewart is pretty much guaranteed to be vacated. Kozinski doesn't really have the leeway you are suggesting he has in this case. He could just throw himself under the bus in spite of that; but it wouldn't change anything as the higher court would still reverse the decision.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodcdi
Another thing I find strange is the Court sending Stewart's case back down to include a decision it refused to hear in the first place(Silveira v. Lockyear). Is the Supreme Court going to let a lower court set a precedent and follow it as if it were the final word? They have done nothing less here.

No, that is not what happened here. The court just directed him to review the decision in light of the recent decision in Raich. In his earlier decision, Kozinski had relied on some of the court's rulings limiting the commerce clause. If Raich is applied, then the commerce clause argument no longer supports Stewart. The court did not tell Kozinski to use Silveira v. Lockyer; but because that is still good precedent in the 9th Circuit, Kozinski must use it - so he cannot find a 2nd Amendment win for Stewart based on those grounds, even if he would probably like to.
Quote:

Kozinski was told to review the case in light of Raich v. Gonzales. What would have kept Kozinski from doing that and finding it inapplicable? The Court didn't vacate his ruling, as I understand, stepped upon their own US v. Lopez to justify Raich v. Gonzales without any evidence that the marijuana grown would have effected IC, meaning it would have to have been proven that these people would have bought marijuana if they hadn't grown their own, when in fact they waited for it to be legal to grow their own by California law. Without such proof, there is no evidence these people would have bought marijuana. It is no different for Stewart. There is no proof that Stewart would have bought a machine gun had he not built his own.

Lopez established two different tests depending on whether the activity was commercial (easier test) or non-commercial (more difficult test). What happened in Raich v. Gonzales is the court (specifically Scalia) said "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially effect interstate commerce." Scalia justified this on the grounds of the necessary and proper clause. The test was changed with Scalia saying Congress could regulate local activities that were non-commercial if it was necessary to accomplish purposes that were commercial (restricting trade in drugs in that case)

publius gave a good explanation about Raich. Any decision finding that Raich didn't apply to Stewart is pretty much guaranteed to be vacated. Kozinski doesn't really have the leeway you are suggesting he has in this case. He could just throw himself under the bus in spite of that; but it wouldn't change anything as the higher court would still reverse the decision.

What a mess. Kozinski comes up with precedent from the Court to dismiss the charges against Stewart, but the Court has other precedent in its little grab bag that it can whip out that fits its agenda and Stewart is back in deep doo-doo.

Let me tell you about "precedent":

Precedent is nothing less than the dictates of a majority rule - the most dastardly aspect of pure democracy - except that it is entrenched in an oligarchy. This should not be tolerated within or from the courts any more than it would be tolerated by that proverbial lamb with a gun at that dinner party with a pack of wolves. The majority of a court will hold to its precedent pertinaciously, or consider it defeasible at its whim as might be required by the agenda of that majority.

I admire Kozinski. He reminds me of me. I admire Scalia, too, but we are talking of two different commodities here, of which one is constitutionally protected from interference. I have my doubts that Scalia and those who sided with him in Raich v. Gonzales were thinking about arms and the Second Amendment protected right in that decision.

I'm not Kozinski and I'm not in his position. But, it is a position where he could take a stand, make the argument, and force the supremes to take the case and put them on the spot. If this Court wishes to reel in and atone for the abuses of the commerce clause, this would be a great opportunity for them.

Now, lets back up to the 'necessary and proper' clause. It grants Congress power to make laws for carrying into execution the powers Congress has been vested with. It is an usurpation of power for Congress to regulate intrastate commerce. It is a power not granted to Congress. Congress can only regulate commerce among the several states, not govern commerce within any one of them - any more than it could govern commerce within any foreign nation! And, within that commerce clause, foreign nations are equal to the several states and the Indian tribes.

I hope you understand my objections to this debacle. It is not conceptually different from Kozinski's dissent on the Court's refusal to hear Silveira v. Lockyer enbanc. The disingenuousness, the hypocrisy, the disregard for the Constitution, the arrogance of these perpetrators of this travesty both sickens and angers me. I'm frightened as well. I fear our very survival as a nation of free people and sovereign states is in jeopardy. Though I know I am not alone, I fear we are not yet sufficient in number to restore obedience to the Constitution. It is unlikely, but I'd like to realize my dream before I pass on. I regret my late start.

Woody

"Impeachment is the Right of the People, vested in the powers granted to Congress, to preserve or restore Justice and preserve the Constitution of the United States. Those vested with power should neither deprive the People the means, nor compel such recourse." B.E.Wood
Too late, me thinks...