Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/15/2006 10:21:56 AM EDT
Since it is all about powers over interstate commerce, why can't a company only sell in state and not be regulated?

That is, if you fill out all the forms to make weapons, regular and class III, and you only sell them intrastate, how can congress/batf regulate what you do?
Granted you sure limit your business, but I bet you could make a good living in Texas.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:27:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Andrewh:
Since it is all about powers over interstate commerce, why can't a company only sell in state and not be regulated?

That is, if you fill out all the forms to make weapons, regular and class III, and you only sell them intrastate, how can congress/batf regulate what you do?
Granted you sure limit your business, but I bet you could make a good living in Texas.



Parts are interstate, so those would be subject to regulation.

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:28:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Andrewh:
Since it is all about powers over interstate commerce, why can't a company only sell in state and not be regulated?.


The supreme court has ruled that growing pot in your back yard to take the edge off the chemotherapy you are receiving can be made illegal under the powers granted the feds under the interstate commerce clause. Selling machine guns would be several steps CLOSER to interstate commerce.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:29:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 10:29:34 AM EDT by DK-Prof]
Congress wil find a way to make it covered by their laws.

Here are a couple of easy ways:

Are all the parts used in the contruction made in-state too?
What is a customer re-sells one out-of-state?
Does their manufacture and sale in-state affect any other businesses (or competitors) out of state?


Especially the last question is almost impossible to DISPROVE, and could be determined by Congress as being enough of an example of a tenuous inter-state connection to put it under their regulatory powers.

Complete bullshit, but that's how they're doing it now, as far as I can tell.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:29:21 AM EDT
Again, based on building what he built to get away with it. I mean if he did it at home, what could a company do with actual correct equipment.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:31:28 AM EDT
Well since they have authority over anyone trying to sell it out of state regardless. It would still have to move through an FFL.
Since you are a manufacturer, it has to have a serial number that can be tracked.
Since no one can buy one instate from any one out of state anyway, it can't possibly affect someone elses business.
They already ruled that everything has some component from out of state, and that raw materials don't count.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:34:36 AM EDT
A farmer in the Midwest was growing corn for his own use and not to sell. Feds wanted to regulate how much he could grow. SCOTUS said he could be regulated under the clause because corn was sold interstate.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:58:23 AM EDT
But new machine guns are not sold interstate right?
Or due LE sales count?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:01:49 AM EDT
the feds can regulate whatever the hell they want because they just have to prove it has some bearing on interstate trade, according to the supreme court's interpretation of the commerce clause. and everything could conceivably affect interstate trade in SOME way. it's like "12 degrees of kevin bacon" except its "12 degrees to interestate trade".
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:08:56 AM EDT
What if you built your own minigun design that was built on a permanent mount that was not movable or towable. Built with all parts from your own state. It can't be sold interstate since it can't be moved. It would be there permanently so would that work?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:11:51 AM EDT
I studied the case in a law class, and brought it to the lawyer teaching the class after reviewing the case. The reason his machine guns werent interstate commerce, was because they werent built out of machine gun parts readily available. He designed the guns himself, one offs if you will. He could've followed plans, but nobody built commercial versions like his.


So under that, the raw materials used to produce the different parts that went into building the gun, would not have to be manufactured in-state, because they were not weapon specific. Just generic metals. But that is only limited to the f/a parts of the gun, not barrels, because they can be used for s/a guns as well.

Stewart used sten gun parts kits, to build his machine guns. He probably redesigned the receiver/frame and setup of the gun.

So, with DIAS' and LL, being classified as machine guns, they can be produced out of raw materials. The ATF did not anticipate this when ruling drop in conversions as guns themselves. So now, they must either allow the precedent in the stewart ruling, or unregulate drop in conversions. Kind of a tight spot, and they are fighting it through court.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:17:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1BMF:
I studied the case in a law class, and brought it to the lawyer teaching the class after reviewing the case. The reason his machine guns werent interstate commerce, was because they werent built out of machine gun parts readily available. He designed the guns himself, one offs if you will. He could've followed plans, but nobody built commercial versions like his.


So under that, the raw materials used to produce the different parts that went into building the gun, would not have to be manufactured in-state, because they were not weapon specific. Just generic metals. But that is only limited to the f/a parts of the gun, not barrels, because they can be used for s/a guns as well.

Stewart used sten gun parts kits, to build his machine guns. He probably redesigned the receiver/frame and setup of the gun.

So, with DIAS' and LL, being classified as machine guns, they can be produced out of raw materials. The ATF did not anticipate this when ruling drop in conversions as guns themselves. So now, they must either allow the precedent in the stewart ruling, or unregulate drop in conversions. Kind of a tight spot, and they are fighting it through court.



im pretty sure all of that was superceded by the raich decision.

hell, she even made sure that the fertilizer and gardening tools she was using was produced in-state...... kinda hard to have less "effect on interstate trade" than that.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:19:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By 1BMF:
I studied the case in a law class, and brought it to the lawyer teaching the class after reviewing the case. The reason his machine guns werent interstate commerce, was because they werent built out of machine gun parts readily available. He designed the guns himself, one offs if you will. He could've followed plans, but nobody built commercial versions like his.


So under that, the raw materials used to produce the different parts that went into building the gun, would not have to be manufactured in-state, because they were not weapon specific. Just generic metals. But that is only limited to the f/a parts of the gun, not barrels, because they can be used for s/a guns as well.

Stewart used sten gun parts kits, to build his machine guns. He probably redesigned the receiver/frame and setup of the gun.

So, with DIAS' and LL, being classified as machine guns, they can be produced out of raw materials. The ATF did not anticipate this when ruling drop in conversions as guns themselves. So now, they must either allow the precedent in the stewart ruling, or unregulate drop in conversions. Kind of a tight spot, and they are fighting it through court.



im pretty sure all of that was superceded by the raich decision.

hell, she even made sure that the fertilizer and gardening tools she was using was produced in-state...... kinda hard to have less "effect on interstate trade" than that.



I'm not familiar with the Raich decision, what is it?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:19:52 AM EDT
Many moons ago, the Supreme Court ruled against a farmer (forget the name of the case or where it happened) who was growing wheat for use on his own farm and his own consumption. He wasn't selling it to anyone, much less out of state.

He also wasn't following some Federal law (which existed at the time) that governed how you were supposed to market your wheat.

He claimed that since it was for personal use, and since he wasn't selling it to anyone, the Commerce Clause didn't apply.

The Supreme Court found that since he was using his own wheat, that meant he wasn't buying wheat from somewhere else. Which affected inter-state commerce. Therefore the Feds could regulate him through the Commerce Clause.

More than any other law in this country, the Commerce Clause has been bastardized far beyond what the Founding Fathers intended it to do. And has led to the Federal gov't being able to control our day to day lives.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:24:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JLH3:
Many moons ago, the Supreme Court ruled against a farmer (forget the name of the case or where it happened) who was growing wheat for use on his own farm and his own consumption. He wasn't selling it to anyone, much less out of state.

He also wasn't following some Federal law (which existed at the time) that governed how you were supposed to market your wheat.

He claimed that since it was for personal use, and since he wasn't selling it to anyone, the Commerce Clause didn't apply.

The Supreme Court found that since he was using his own wheat, that meant he wasn't buying wheat from somewhere else. Which affected inter-state commerce. Therefore the Feds could regulate him through the Commerce Clause.

More than any other law in this country, the Commerce Clause has been bastardized far beyond what the Founding Fathers intended it to do. And has led to the Federal gov't being able to control our day to day lives.



Building a machine gun that is not built/sold commercially would be not be affecting any commerce.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:32:52 AM EDT
That is kind of my point. Anyone buying one of my machine guns could not buy one anyother way, so how could it affect interstate comerce.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:37:15 AM EDT
the supreme court disagrees.


Building a machine gun that is not built/sold commercially would be not be affecting any commerce.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:39:21 AM EDT
Actually, I don't think they have ruled on it yet. Which is why the atf doesn't know what to do.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:40:40 AM EDT
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich) is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 5, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States," Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

...

The marijuana Angel Raich used was homegrown, and was therefore licit under California law, but not under federal law. Diane Monson grew her own in her garden. Agents of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration raided her land and seized and destroyed her marijuana crop in August 2002. Raich and Monson sued for injunctive and declaratory relief in October 2002, claiming that the Controlled Substances Act was not constitutional as applied to their conduct.

One of the enumerated limits on the U.S. Federal Government's power is the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants the power to regulate "commerce," but only commerce that occurs "among the several States," with foreign countries, and "with the Indian tribes." Raich argued that her possession and consumption of medical marijuana was not commerce. Neither she nor Monson paid for their marijuana, and neither obtained it from another state. The soil, seeds, nutrients, and lumber used to grow the marijuana, the respondents pointed out, were obtained from California.

...

The government's case

The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize and opposes medical marijuana. They sent federal agents to break up California's medical marijuana co-ops and seize their assets. They believed federal law preempted that of California. Another argument was that, if a single exception was made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice.

The United States has a federal structure, with power divided between the states and the federal government. Many expansions of federal power enacted during the first phase of the New Deal in the 1930s were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States, until President Franklin Delano Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to increase the number of judges on the Court to fifteen (the court packing scheme), and fill it with sympathetic judges. However, in what was called "the switch in time that saved nine," the Court reversed course and found reasons to uphold new expansions of federal power. Wickard v. Filburn was one of these cases, which ruled that federal crop price controls reached the wheat grown on a rural farm to be fed to the owners and their farm animals. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" is "commerce" because if he had not grown and consumed it, he would have had to buy it from someone. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat it would affect the interstate market in wheat. This case marked what may be as the high water mark of the commerce power. For sixty years—until the 1995 decision in Lopez—the Supreme Court struck down no law as exceeding the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. In Raich, the government contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption.
[edit]


...

Aftermath

Not long after the decision in Raich, the Court vacated a lower court decision in United States v. Stewart and remanded it to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Raich. In Stewart, the Ninth Circuit had held that Congress lacked the Commerce Clause power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns.


LINK TO FULL ARTICLE
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:43:37 AM EDT
And as of right now, only folks living in the 9th Circus supposedly have that option, the other circuses and SCOTUS haven't taken up the issue. The other circuits, it's still tentatively illegal.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:47:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Congress wil find a way to make it covered by their laws.

Here are a couple of easy ways:

Are all the parts used in the contruction made in-state too?
What is a customer re-sells one out-of-state?
Does their manufacture and sale in-state affect any other businesses (or competitors) out of state?


Especially the last question is almost impossible to DISPROVE, and could be determined by Congress as being enough of an example of a tenuous inter-state connection to put it under their regulatory powers.

Complete bullshit, but that's how they're doing it now, as far as I can tell.



No, because any machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986, is restricted.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:47:52 AM EDT
We all know that even if it were ruled perfectly legal, that ATF would ignore the ruling, as they do so many others...and they more or less get away with it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:48:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 11:53:27 AM EDT by silascobb]
I think they would argue that allowing the intrastate manufacture and sale of MG's would affect interstate commerce because all the people from that state would buy them from in-state and not from out-of-state FFLs. That would negatively affect interstate commerce because it would dampen MG sales from out-of-state owners/FFLs who might otherwise have had that business but for the in-state sale.

Not that I agree with that argument, but it would likely be made. IIRC that was the same argument made for the corn growing case. Even if you are growing it for your own consumption, the Fed can regulate it (if they choose) because you are not buying interstate corn as a consequence of growing it yourself. I.e. if everybody grew their own corn, the interstate corn growers would be put out of business.

ETA: And the argument would follow that in-state sales of NEWLY-manufactured MGs would impact interstate sales of pre-1986 MGs.

ETA2: And the federal "commerce clause" power is VERY broad. Only in one or two decisions (Lopez being the first in a hundred years) did the USSC strike down a federal law on the basis that it exceeded Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:50:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
the supreme court disagrees.


Building a machine gun that is not built/sold commercially would be not be affecting any commerce.



Actually, it would have a positive affect on ammo sales
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:51:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
And as of right now, only folks living in the 9th Circus supposedly have that option, the other circuses and SCOTUS haven't taken up the issue. The other circuits, it's still tentatively illegal.



How come all the good rulings only happen in the 9th Circus!?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:00:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JLH3:

More than any other law in this country, the Commerce Clause has been bastardized far beyond what the Founding Fathers intended it to do. And has led to the Federal gov't being able to control our day to day lives.



And if that doesn't work, the gov has other methods to force compliance amongst the states... as in "federal blackmail" or the witholding of certain funds if a state doesn't enact a law that Congress would like to pass but can't because of 10th amendment issues.

Example would be the witholding of federal highway funds from a state if that state doesn't enact a certain traffic or safety law.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:13:03 PM EDT
Here is my question...

If a Doctor can perscribe Pot to his patient. Then can a Doctor perscribe a gun to his patient under the same court decision?

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 2:14:30 PM EDT
Neither of those court decisions would apply, since you can't buy one now. In addition, there are no laws that make mg illegal, just non transferable.

As for if you make it, you hurt other business, again you can't buy one now, but in addition, you can build your own semi auto and it isn't regulated, why would the mg be any different.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 2:20:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Andrewh:
Since it is all about powers over interstate commerce, why can't a company only sell in state and not be regulated?

That is, if you fill out all the forms to make weapons, regular and class III, and you only sell them intrastate, how can congress/batf regulate what you do?
Granted you sure limit your business, but I bet you could make a good living in Texas.



Never happen, Don.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 2:28:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:
Actually, it would have a positive affect on ammo sales


Good point. Every ammo maker in the country should be lobbying hard to get full-autos made legal.z
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 2:29:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 2:31:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 2:32:49 PM EDT by CRC]
Because the 9th Circus wanted so badly for medical marjuana to be legalized that they ruled in Stewart's favor.

It's all about Golden State potheads.

A lot of pro Commerce Clause libs were outraged at Raich.
Top Top