The FOPA is coming under SCOTUS scrutiny

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it interesting that Mr. "Individual Right" Ashcroft allowed the DoJ to Petition for Cert here.

He didn't have a choice. It's headed for SCOTUS, the easy way or the hard way. Petitioning for cert is his job in this case.

9th Circuit already has revoked 922(o) in its jurisdiction. That left a huge conflict between the 9th Circuit and all other jurisdictions. BATFE has a big pile of "I wanna make a MG" applications pending, but doesn't know how to approve some and deny others just because one is in the 9th Circuit and others not (equal protection issue). As the Stewart case was ruled on "interstate commerce" grounds, this also creates a serious split over what is and is not "interstate commerce", varying only by jurisdiction.

Only SCOTUS can rule whether 922(o) is or is not law of the land. This requires a high-court ruling clarifying the limits of interstate commerce, which will make or break 922(o).

The AG cannot allow such a split to exist, especially when it resulted from the feds' actions (in this case, charging Stewart with violating 922(o)). Like it or not, it was Ashcroft's job to clean up this mess by filing cert with SCOTUS over Stewart.

That said, notice that the petition as filed is actually pretty lame. Ashcroft had to approve filing pet. for cert., but it seems he made sure it was phrased in a losing form. Call it "malicious obedience".
 
Ashcroft had to approve filing pet. for cert., but it seems he made sure it was phrased in a losing form.
Click to expand...


Could you explain "losing form" to me a little? I'm not too familliar with the procedures in presenting something before the USSC. This is just a petition, and written briefs and oral arguments (which already happened?) follow, yes? So the wording of the petition doesn't matter that much?
 
I don't know that there IS a really good legal argument for overturning the 9th circuit's decision in this case, so I don't read anything into the feds making lousy arguments in their brief.

The unfortunate thing is, they probably don't HAVE to have a good argument. They've got an unattractive defendant, (What WAS Stewart thinking, trying to put a hit on the judge? Assuming he really did...) and an attack on gun control that's at it's heart, not the margins.

I think we'll have a better idea what's going to happen in this case, when today's drug case has been argued. We'll learn whether the Court is really serious about enumerated powers doctrine, and reining in commerce clause abuse.
 
The wording of the petition matters in that its content is poorly conceived. Much of its arguments for overturning the 9th Circuit's decision are based on cases that SCOTUS has ruled against, directly or indirectly. Ultimately, the petition amounts to "the feds can ban anything they want because everything has some contact with interstate commerce - so 922(o) is valid" ... this is, of course, unconstitutional.

My point is that the petition, submitted with Ashcroft's approval, may have been intentionally written just well enough to be taken seriously yet deliberately weak enough to assure failure. It's a re-hash of lame arguments which have already been thoroughly demolished.

The decision on this case will impact far beyond MGs. Bush/Ashcroft had to get this case to SCOTUS to further their agenda, but could only do so by advancing an opposing view. The only way is to present the opposing view, but poorly.
 
OK, thanks for the clarification. I hope you are both right, and I hope it works.

That's a lot of hope.
 
After inflation and the like, $200 in 1934 is equal to about $2700 in 2003 dollars.
Click to expand...

Actually, at an average 7% annual inflation rate, $200 equals $24,693 in 2003 dollars.
 
That might be what they try to do. repeal the law, but allow congress to update the tax stamp for inflation. :uhoh: What do you guys think?
 
Tom Haney (Stewart's Attorney) is out of the office until Thursday, and the USSC case handler for Stewart is out until ?. If the response is on her desk it will be posted on the USSC docket web site when she gets back.

Bear in mind that if a response was filed by Haney, it would be a Brief in Opposition asking that the USSC deny cert since Stewart's conviction for violating 922(o) was overturned by the Ninth Circuit, and that's the ruling he would want to stand.
 
OK, this is what I get for not paying attention...

I think we'll have a better idea what's going to happen in this case, when today's drug case has been argued.
Click to expand...

Which drug case? And what's the latest on the thread topic?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the NFA originally set up as a result of the organized crime popping up during prohibition?
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I think you are sort of wrong. I believe the president and many other progressives wanted to ban all firearms by taxing them into oblivion, but they where forced to compromise. Organized crime was the exscuse though.

As for this case, it could be the AWB expiring all over again. :D Sadly I doubt we will get any new firearms or end the over use of the interstate commerce clause.
 
Thanks for the link, Bubbles. I actually figured out the answer to my own question shortly after asking it from other links I had opened but not yet read. Good resource there, though. :)
 
That inflation calculator is way off. We owned a house that originally sold for $6,000 in 1926, and we sold it in 1987 for $245,000. The inflation calculator says it should have been worth $37,339 in 1987. That's almost a seven-to-one error!
 
That inflation calculator is way off. We owned a house that originally sold for $6,000 in 1926, and we sold it in 1987 for $245,000. The inflation calculator says it should have been worth $37,339 in 1987. That's almost a seven-to-one error!
Click to expand...

It's not the same. Real Estate values are based off of the area the property is in, among other things.
 
PMDW is correct, the inflation calculator is more for the cost of things like bread, milk, etc.

Kharn
 
So what are the odds that the Supreme Court will find some way to avoid making a decision?
 
I was really more concerned not so much with machine guns. I was more curious about the implications of ALL the "commerce clause" Fed laws. Laws like prohibition of drugs and racketeering and income tax. Won't killing this one kill those soon?
Click to expand...
This question is an example of a common misconception about the Supreme Court. Not every case and decision of the Court has some broad affect on other laws, or cases. The Court is ruling on a specific case, and the specific circumstances of that case, which may or may not affect other cases and laws.

If the Court finds a problem with the application of the Commerce Clause, in the specific circumstances of Stewart does NOT mean that all other Commerce Clause laws are suddenly invalid. Cases that are very similar in circumstance to Stewart may be affected, but the Commerce Clause is still part of the Constitution, and Congress will still be allowed to make law affecting INTERstate commerce. The question here is specifically whether Stewart's actions should be subject to a law based on the Commerce Clause if he did nothing that involved INTERstate commerce. There is much debate on whether his manufacture of that gun was part of interstate commerce, and that is what the court will need to decide. This case may more clearly define what is considered to "affect interstate commerce," but will not suddenly nullify all laws based on the interstate commerce clause if the Court rules in favor of Stewart.
 
That inflation calculator is way off. We owned a house that originally sold for $6,000 in 1926, and we sold it in 1987 for $245,000. The inflation calculator says it should have been worth $37,339 in 1987. That's almost a seven-to-one error!
Click to expand...
That logic is flawed. You are comparing the inflation of one peice of property to the overall inflation rate. That would be the same as trying to compare the inflation of real estate values in your neighborhood to the price of a Picasso or Monet painting. The average overall inflation rate is much different than the inflation of one piece of property, or even one particular industry (such as real estate).
 
There are different historical inflation figures in many different categories. Rarely do two items or services ever inflate at the exact same rate

Acording to the CPI http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html
$200 in 1950 was the equivalent of $1527 in 2003

Accoding to the PPI http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflation/ppi/inflatePPI.html
$200 in 1950 was the equivalent of $1085.60 in 2003
(I picked 1950 because the PPI doesn't go back to 1934)

It's clear that a $200 tax in 1934 was more than the cost of most machineguns. 100%+ tax rates on goods that people don't need are not productive; a lower tax rate would almost certainly generate more tax revenue. (standard maximization of profit; get some statistics, fit it with a curve (f: tax rate -> tax revenue), and find the maximum... not that the government ever does that, of course; they just pick rates out of the air.)

Whether the Supremes would throw out the NFA based on that reasoning, I have no idea.

More stuff on the Producer Price Index
and the Consumer Price Index
 
With regard to the inflation side of things -- I prefer to look at the price of gold... in early '32, gold was worth just over $20/ounce.

by 34, I believe that the it was $35/ounce, which it was pegged at for a brief time...


Which means about 5.7 ounces of gold for the $200 tax... times $450 or so that gold is at today, gives almost $2600.

Not that gold is an entirely objective measure of value when comparing gold-standard and fiat money -- but as the dollar loses purchasing power, the price of gold goes up...

I'd posit that there is a lot of inflation we don't see directly (housing prices for one, the stock market in the late '90s for another.) But that's another tangent.
 
Remember that while comparing the price of gold can be somewhat informative you really need to factor in the fact that the price of gold in this country was artificially pegged at first $35 then $32. It was not operating in a free market.

To get a better representation you must look at the price of gold from before FDR confiscated everyones gold, to better protect us from ourselves, to when it has started trading freely again.

I believe that FDR siezed the gold at a price of 28.50 and after he had it all raised the price to the above numbers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
War on Drugs used to justify unrelated firearm restrictions by SCOTUS
Replies
3
Views
630
Standing Wolf
S
C
  • Locked
RKBA case before SCOTUS this session
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Kharn
K
P
  • Locked
High court's Calif. ruling outlaws homemade machine guns
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
ConstitutionCowboy
C
D
  • Locked
2nd Amendment Case at SCOTUS: STATEMENT OF THE CASE (PART 1)
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Don Gwinn
D
B
  • Locked
Using the Commerce Clause For Good Instead Of Evil?
Replies
16
Views
693
Al Norris
A
Back
Top