Pulling out my soap box (Long read follows),
The following are my thoughts on lawsuits, firearms, and interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. I am using the Gonzales v Raich No 03-1454 which was decided June 2005. This case speaks specifically to Interstate Commerce and the Federal Power to regulate such, and how the States CAN NOT supercede the Federal Authority.
Make it a great day
Page 11
By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration pre-approved research study.
Marijuana is not illegal at the Federal Level. It has to be pre-approved FDA research. A Doctor, Drug Company, etc goes to the FDA and says hey we want to test this to see if there is any medical purpose; are we approved? Just like firearms owners having to jump through the hoops to get CLEO signoffs, CCW, etc.
Page 13
First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146, 150 (1971).
Has Congress or the Courts said the states can make firearms laws more strict than Federal Law?
Page 13
Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce.
Again Congress has the authority not the States. Congress has spoken.
Page 13
Third, Congress has the power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
Again Congress has the authority not the States. Congress has spoken. How does shutting down California citizens and firearms customers from the purchase of firearms not effect commerce. The business outside of California are effected. Not just the firearms industry either, steal, plastics, shipping, fuel, wood, etc are effected.
This is referred to as a 3 prong Test. The States fail all 3 prongs of the test. Most times if two of the prongs are met then the Party meeting those prongs will have the law in their favor.
Page 22-23
Unlike those at issue in Lopez and Morrison, the activities regulated by the CSA are quintessentially economic. “Economics” refers to “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966).
Another Three Prong Test. Are firearms part of the economy:
Are firearms produced? Yes
Are firearms distributed? Yes
Are firearms consumed as commodities? Yes
Page 23
The CSA is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market. Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational (and commonly utilized) means of regulating commerce in that product.36 Such prohibitions includespecific decisions requiring that a drug be withdrawn from the market as a result of the failure to comply with regulatory requirements as well as decisions excluding Schedule I drugs entirely from the market. Because the CSA is a statute that directly regulates economic, commercial activity, our opinion in Morrison casts no doubt on its constitutionality.
The Gun Control Act of insert year here is a Federal statute just like the CSA. The States have overstepped their bounds in a big way.
Page 24 – 25
Indeed, most of the substances classified in the CSA “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose.” 21 U. S. C. §801(1). Thus, even if respondents are correct that marijuana does have accepted medical uses and thus should be redesignated as a lesser schedule drug,37 the CSA would still impose controls beyond what is required by California law.
The Federal Government controls firearms not the States. The State can not make anything the Federal Government has under interstate commerce more or less regulated than the Feds. To do so would violate the Feds control over such item.
Page 25
The CSA requires manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies, and other handlers of controlled substances to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions mandating registration with the DEA, compliance with specific production quotas, security controls to guard against diversion, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, and prescription requirements. See 21 U. S. C. §§821–830; 21 CFR §1301 et seq. (2004).
How is this any different than BATFE? They are the Federal Law Enforcement Agency in charge of Alcohol, Tobacco, FIREARMS, and Explosives. If no such agency existed then maybe the States would have a leg to stand on here. I’m just not seeing it at all.
Page 26
The congressional judgment that an exemption for such a significant segment of the total market would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire regulatory scheme is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. Indeed, that judgment is not only rational, but “visible to the naked eye,” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 563, under any commonsense appraisal of the probable consequences of such an open-ended exemption.
Has not letting each State set up their own laws on the issue of Firearms consumption done this? We as firearms consumers have become near insane!!! You can own an AK as long as it is semi-auto; unless you were lucky enough to buy a transferable one before the machine gun ban; unless you live in California (et al); then you can not have one at all; and you had to move it out of State before the State Ban, unless you registered said AK then you can have it as long as you only use it with a 10 round or less mag…I think I can learn to play Royal Fisbin easier.
Page 26
The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail.
Do we have an issue with State and Federal Laws not agreeing. Oh heck yeah!!! Again the Feds win.
Page 26
It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is “ ‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants,’ ” however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 196 (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U. S. 405, 426 (1925)).
It does not matter what the State thinks. Crime is out of control, the sky is falling!!! Firearms are a Federal Issue…not a State Issue when it comes to commerce.
Page 27 – 28
Respondents acknowledge this proposition, but nonetheless contend that their activities were not “an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme” because they had been “isolated by the State of California, and [are] policed by the State of California,” and thus remain “entirely separated from the market.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. The dissenters fall prey to similar reasoning. See n. 38, supra this page. The notion that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition, and, more importantly, one that Congress could have rationally rejected. Indeed, that the California exemptions will have a significant impact on both the supply and demand sides of the market for marijuana is not just “plausible” as the principal dissent concedes, post, at 16 (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting), it is readily apparent.
What you do in one state effects the many. California has prohibited me from selling my firearms and mags in their state because they find them offensive. Tough, California you have a huge population and that population has been cut off to me when I want to sale. California wants firearms to meet their standards which are above the Federal standards. Firearms Designers have reengineered and applied to California to be graced with that market being opened. Yep it has had an impact on supply and demand.