Gunowners were warned about this...

[fastpat]

Here's a portion of the press release by the Brady Center- Handgun Control Incorporated, wherein they cite the Medical Marijuana decision of the Supreme Court as decisively granting federal power to regulate firearms within states.

o Moreover, Judge Alito went far beyond the limited holding in Lopez,
and indeed his view in Rybar has been repudiated by the Supreme
Court. In June 2005, the Supreme Court issued its latest ruling on
Congressional power under the Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Raich,
125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), rejecting the theory advanced in Judge Alito's
Rybar dissent. Six Justices, including Justice Scalia, sustained the
application of federal drug laws to intrastate medical marijuana use.
Based on this ruling, the Supreme Court vacated a 2-1 ruling in the
Ninth Circuit case of U.S. v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003),
that had declared the machine gun ban to be unconstitutional. In his
exchange with Judge Alito, Senator Kyl cited the Stewart decision,
without noting that it had been vacated by the Supreme Court. Judge
Alito's conclusion that the machine gun ban violates the Commerce
Clause has now been rejected by every circuit to consider the issue:
the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and
Eleventh Circuits.

When you authorize the federal government to regulate or prohibit any specific thing, it grants them the power to regulate or prohibit anything. There is acutally no authorization given the federal government to regulate or prohibit even one thing to be found in the Constitution.

[legion]

Originally posted by fastpat
There is acutally no authorization given the federal government to regulate or prohibit even one thing to be found in the Constitution.

Interstate commerce?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by legion
Interstate commerce?

That's an authorization to make interstate, not intrastate, commerce regular, i.e. standardized, nothing more.

The US Bureau of Standards gets its power from that clause.

[legion]

But it is that exact clause that the federal government has used to extend its powers. It was explicitly mentioned as late as the 1960's. Now even that formality isn't even observed.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by legion
But it is that exact clause that the federal government has used to extend its powers. It was explicitly mentioned as late as the 1960's. Now even that formality isn't even observed.

You're correct, and that's why we desparately need to become activists to curb federal power.

Hard case activists that don't compromise when it comes to government lawbreaking. Interpreting the Constitution in order to grant itself more power is the very epitome of lawlessness.

[legion]

I agree with you. But how to fix the system?

I feel that unfortunately, more government oversight (say, of securities markets) is needed than I would prefer (which is still much less than currently exists). Changing the Constitution at this point is next to impossible. But under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, many of these laws would be struck down, despite their necessity.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by legion
I agree with you. But how to fix the system?

I feel that unfortunately, more government oversight (say, of securities markets) is needed than I would prefer (which is still much less than currently exists).

You'll have to give up autorizations of this type to get the reduced power necessary to be safe from the federal government. That's the issue, if government is doing something we like, that it's not really authorized to do, then we must be willing to prohibit government from exercising the illegitimate power. No exceptions.

Changing the Constitution at this point is next to impossible. But under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, many of these laws would be struck down, despite their necessity.

Again, authorization to government the exercise of one illegitimate power grants authority to exercise ANY illegitimate power, if not immediately, then little by little over time.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]You'll have to give up autorizations of this type to get the reduced power necessary to be safe from the federal government. That's the issue, if government is doing something we like, that it's not really authorized to do, then we must be willing to prohibit government from exercising the illegitimate power. No exceptions.



Again, authorization to government the exercise of one illegitimate power grants authority to exercise ANY illegitimate power, if not immediately, then little by little over time.

Join the NRA folks....it's the largest lobby horse to ride for constitutional protection. Sure, they focus on the 2nd amendment alone, but I see nobody else out there carrying the fight as well as the NRA does.