View Single Post
Old April 16, 2013, 07:52 PM   #232
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,550
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
Originally Posted by JimDandy
Don't they consider the firearm to have never LEFT the Interstate commerce stream? As the money from the sale buys another stock item at wholesale, which paid for the worker to mine the minerals?
I was just pulling a theory out of my backside, JD. I'm not sure who the "they" is in your question. However, under that line of thinking, EVERYTHING is subject to Commerce Clause regulation by the fed gov't.
Which was exactly the point that Both Justice O'Conner and Justice Thomas made in their dissents over the decision in [ii]Gonzales v. Raich[/i] (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

For those that were here when this decision came out, I opined that the feds could now control most any aspect of your life. This was also the point of the plaintiffs in NFIB v. Sebelius. People guffawed at the broccoli hyperbole, Yet that very argument was from O'Conner's dissent in Raich.

If Sebelius says anything, it says that if the Government cannot get you with the Commerce Clause, it will get you with punitive taxes.

There is nothing that has occurred between then and now that disuades me from the belief that allowing the Government, yet another power grab, will not be harmful to our liberties. A power grab that the Court will likely uphold.

If we grant that the federal power extends, through the commerce clause, to federally licensed firearms dealers, then such regulation can include not only the 4473, but also the NICS check. But to assume that such federal power extends to private intrastate transactions is to give authority where there is no constitutional grant.

For all of the above reasons, I am against allowing any such power.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.04642 seconds with 7 queries