I was reading the situation of United States v. Stewart and realized the sole logic for reversing the lower court's decision and sending it back to them was Gonzales v. Raich.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled someone that made thier own firearm such as a machinegun was not in violation of of the law because there was no interstate commerce with a firearm manufactured for personal use and never intended for sale, so the federal government had no jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause.
The SCOTUS then sent the case back in light of Gonzales v. Raich, a drug case where someone was prosecuted for growing marijuana, also never intended to be sold and only for personal use.
In Gonzales v. Raich it was ruled that it still fell under the jursidiction of the interstate commerce clause of congress even though it was never intended for sale.
So the logic is then that the machinegun also never going to be involved in commerce or for sale is still subject to congressional law to regulate things that effect interstate commerce.
The Drug War once again destroying more unrelated rights of United States citizens.
I am against drugs personaly, but clearly the number of casualties is not worth the war involved in restricting such a personal decision that individuals should be left to make.
In Gonzales v. Raich the marijuana being grown was legal under CA law, and congress only had any power to make the law that made it illegal under the interstate commerce clause.
By ruling 'Interstate Commerce' can be applied to anything, even something made at home intended to be kept at home it gave the power to do the same for firearms.
This was even done at the direction of the SCOTUS, which sent the case back in light of Gonzales v. Raich.
So it was not some accidental consequence, but an intentional direction taken by the SCOTUS.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled someone that made thier own firearm such as a machinegun was not in violation of of the law because there was no interstate commerce with a firearm manufactured for personal use and never intended for sale, so the federal government had no jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause.
The SCOTUS then sent the case back in light of Gonzales v. Raich, a drug case where someone was prosecuted for growing marijuana, also never intended to be sold and only for personal use.
In Gonzales v. Raich it was ruled that it still fell under the jursidiction of the interstate commerce clause of congress even though it was never intended for sale.
So the logic is then that the machinegun also never going to be involved in commerce or for sale is still subject to congressional law to regulate things that effect interstate commerce.
The Drug War once again destroying more unrelated rights of United States citizens.
I am against drugs personaly, but clearly the number of casualties is not worth the war involved in restricting such a personal decision that individuals should be left to make.
In Gonzales v. Raich the marijuana being grown was legal under CA law, and congress only had any power to make the law that made it illegal under the interstate commerce clause.
By ruling 'Interstate Commerce' can be applied to anything, even something made at home intended to be kept at home it gave the power to do the same for firearms.
This was even done at the direction of the SCOTUS, which sent the case back in light of Gonzales v. Raich.
So it was not some accidental consequence, but an intentional direction taken by the SCOTUS.
