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.
Quote:
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.