BREAKING: Stewart vacated and remanded back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BREAKING: Stewart vacated and remanded back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 6/13/2005 6:44:58 AM EDT

Just out on today's list.

Edited to add: Link here: www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/061305pzor.pdf

Posted: 6/13/2005 6:45:21 AM EDT

[#1]

taggage

Posted: 6/13/2005 6:47:10 AM EDT

[#2]

Mmm?

In english?

What's the case? This isn't the shotgun case that reaffirmed the NFA in the 30's, is it?

Posted: 6/13/2005 6:48:59 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Mmm?

In english?

What's the case? This isn't the shotgun case that reaffirmed the NFA in the 30's, is it?

Negative. Guy making machine guns within the last 5 years or so.

Posted: 6/13/2005 6:49:14 AM EDT

[#4]

No, it's the homemade machine gun case.

What the hell does this mean?

Posted: 6/13/2005 6:51:34 AM EDT

[#5]

how bouta link to some of this action

Posted: 6/13/2005 6:55:33 AM EDT

[#6]

There's no link yet.

And I'm not sure what was vacated - the judgment of the 9th Circuit or the trial court's conviction of Stewart.

Posted: 6/13/2005 6:59:22 AM EDT

[#7]

Stewart vacated and remanded back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration

Basically the USSC told the Ninth to "do over".

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:01:51 AM EDT

[#8]

Man, I thought do overs went out with second grade.

Taggariffic!

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:03:11 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Stewart vacated and remanded back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration

Basically the USSC told the Ninth to "do over".

Since there were no winners tonight... next weeks jackpot shall be an estimated...

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:04:41 AM EDT

[#10]

Tag.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:04:52 AM EDT

[#11]

See the official order here, second from the top, first pageThe 9th's ruling on 922(o) is vacated, not his conviction.

Kharn

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:07:25 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
See the official order here, second from the top, first pageThe 9th's ruling on 922(o) is vacated, not his conviction.

Kharn

Even though the ATF wasn't allowing new machine guns to be built, this means the ruling the 9th set about machine gun production is null and void?

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:08:03 AM EDT

[#13]

04-617 UNITED STATES V. STEWART, ROBERT W.

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ____ (2005).

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:08:15 AM EDT

[#14]

Not good. The Supremes basically said:
"See Raich."

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:08:15 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
See the official order here, second from the top, first pageThe 9th's ruling on 922(o) is vacated, not his conviction.

Kharn

Is there an Engrish version?

So are they hinting to 9th that the .fed can regulate MG's, try again?

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:09:16 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
So are they hinting to 9th that the .fed can regulate MG's, try again?

That is exactly what they are saying.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:09:18 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Not good. The Supremes basically said:
"See Raich."

What happened in that case?

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:09:21 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
04-617 UNITED STATES V. STEWART, ROBERT W.

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ____ (2005).

Spineless.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:09:54 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Not good. The Supremes basically said:
"See Raich."

It's the Eric Cartman school of federal government...

YOU WILL RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!!!!!

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:10:32 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Not good. The Supremes basically said:
"See Raich."

What happened in that case?

That was the medical MJ case last week
where the Supremes shit all over states
rights.

eta: e.g. the lack of interstate commerce
does not supercede the right of the federal
government to regulate (or outlaw)
something.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:12:44 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not good. The Supremes basically said:
"See Raich."

What happened in that case?

That was the medical MJ case last week
where the Supremes shit all over states
rights.

So basically they're saying "Fuck the states, the Fed can regulate machine guns no matter what, ESAD."

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:12:53 AM EDT

[#22]

damn

I knew Stewart had no chance after the marijuana ruling

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:12:53 AM EDT

[#23]

Ahhh...I see...Gonzales v. Raich was the medical marijuana ruling, which bought up the whole inter/intrastate commerce issue, especially pertaining to (in Gonzales v. Raich) crops to be grown and consumed but not sold for commerce...

Hmm...

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:14:33 AM EDT

[#24]

Fudge.

Rule in favor of Interstate Commerce Clause.

RULE IN FAVOR OF FED.GOV

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:15:33 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
So basically they're saying "Fuck the states, the Fed can regulate machine guns no matter what, ESAD."

Yep. Federal law trumps state law even
when no interstate commerce is involved.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:17:33 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So basically they're saying "Fuck the states, the Fed can regulate machine guns no matter what, ESAD."

Yep. Federal law trumps state law even
when no interstate commerce is involved.

Fuckin' USSC

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:24:43 AM EDT

[#27]

Power's gone to Fed.gov's head.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:25:05 AM EDT

[#28]

Exactly as I expected after the Raich ruling. The Feds can now legislate/regulate just about anything in your daily lives and to hell with what the states think.

Knew it was going to happen, but it still sucks.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:26:20 AM EDT

[#29]

What if the 9th still upholds their ruling?

Then what?

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:32:44 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
What if the 9th still upholds their ruling?

Then what?

Then they will get reversed by the Supreme Court when the case is sent up again.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:33:49 AM EDT

[#31]

They can write rules until they're blue in the face...

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:37:02 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Exactly as I expected after the Raich ruling. The Feds can now legislate/regulate just about anything in your daily lives and to hell with what the states think.

Knew it was going to happen, but it still sucks.

Well, after all, it was said that the decline in States rights began in 1787 with the ratification of the US Constitution...

It's been downhill from there. That ASSHAT Lincoln didn't help matters much either

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:40:16 AM EDT

[#33]

IBTL!

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:45:53 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
IBTL!

Why IBTL?

Kharn

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:46:29 AM EDT

[#35]

Can we all at least agree now that the War On Drugs is a "bad thing"?

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:48:48 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So basically they're saying "Fuck the states, the Fed can regulate machine guns no matter what, ESAD."

Yep. Federal law trumps state law even
when no interstate commerce is involved.

This wouldnt be a problem if our founding fathers had forseen one problem we would have.

Judges who legislate from the bench.

I cant wait until the President, whoever it may be, tells the Supreme Court that their decision is crap and will not stand. It hasnt happend yet but it can, and will.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:50:14 AM EDT

[#37]

Raich and McCain-Feingold basically said that the Federal government has unlimited powers, and state's rights no longer exist. The United States of the Founders is gone, and the US Constitution can be ignored at will.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:54:30 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So basically they're saying "Fuck the states, the Fed can regulate machine guns no matter what, ESAD."

Yep. Federal law trumps state law even
when no interstate commerce is involved.

This wouldnt be a problem if our founding fathers had forseen one problem we would have.

Judges who legislate from the bench.

I cant wait until the President, whoever it may be, tells the Supreme Court that their decision is crap and will not stand. It hasnt happend yet but it can, and will.

The Chief Justice during the Civil War advised Lincoln that his actions violated the Constitution. Lincoln almost had him arrested.

Andrew Jackson told the Suprme Court to go pound sand after a ruling in favor of Native Americans in a treaty dispute. Jackson basically told them, "It's your ruling, you enforce it."

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:54:31 AM EDT

[#39]

It will be a slow transition to a centralized government like mexico instead of a federation. And we can see how well centralized government has done for them.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:55:37 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So basically they're saying "Fuck the states, the Fed can regulate machine guns no matter what, ESAD."

Yep. Federal law trumps state law even
when no interstate commerce is involved.

This wouldnt be a problem if our founding fathers had forseen one problem we would have.

Judges who legislate from the bench.

I cant wait until the President, whoever it may be, tells the Supreme Court that their decision is crap and will not stand. It hasnt happend yet but it can, and will.

The Chief Justice during the Civil War advised Lincoln that his actions violated the Constitution. Lincoln almost had him arrested.

Andrew Jackson told the Suprme Court to go pound sand after a ruling in favor of Native Americans in a treaty dispute. Jackson basically told them, "It's your ruling, you enforce it."

haha thats awesome. Ill have to read about those.

Posted: 6/13/2005 7:56:50 AM EDT

[#41]

So buy more ammo, then?

Posted: 6/13/2005 9:01:14 AM EDT

[#42]

This did not surprise me in the least bit.

Posted: 6/13/2005 9:07:04 AM EDT

[#43]

What about the 9th (or another defendant/court) using the US v. Rock Island/US v. Dalton approach of saying its unconstitutional since it doesnt generate revenune and the NFA has been held by the courts to be a tax statue (Sonzinsky v US)?

Kharn

Posted: 6/13/2005 9:13:11 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So basically they're saying "Fuck the states, the Fed can regulate machine guns no matter what, ESAD."

Yep. Federal law trumps state law even
when no interstate commerce is involved.

Fuckin'mostly Republican USSC

Posted: 6/13/2005 9:14:47 AM EDT

[#45]

tag

Posted: 6/13/2005 9:14:54 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So basically they're saying "Fuck the states, the Fed can regulate machine guns no matter what, ESAD."

Yep. Federal law trumps state law even
when no interstate commerce is involved.

While that may be true - the original NFA was based on taxing taxable interstate commerce, and 922(o) is an extension of NFA law. Therefore if it isn't interstate commerce, NFA/922(o) should not apply. Sure the feds can legally pass a bill that bans MGs outright rather than creatively taxing them, and that law would trump state law, but they haven't done so - and I think they'd have a hard time doing so.

Posted: 6/13/2005 9:16:49 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So basically they're saying "Fuck the states, the Fed can regulate machine guns no matter what, ESAD."

Yep. Federal law trumps state law even
when no interstate commerce is involved.

Fuckin'mostly Republican USSC

yes, the republicans are our "friends"