Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE STRIKES AGAIN

  1. #1
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    There are already two threads on this forum about felons and 2A rights, so I am not going to defend this schlump here.

    Anyway: The Arlington VA cops arrested a man with a 21-year-old felony record after the idiot posted a video on You Tube showing him standing over a bound woman brandishing a pistol. Fearing for the safety of the woman, they tracked him down, searched his house and found a Colt pistol and ammo.

    But instead of charging him under Virginia's EXILE (mandatory 5 years for an illegal firearm) they turned him over to the Feds.

    Now whatever anybody thinks about restoring 2A rights to felons, this guy probably wouldnt meet the standards of those who do, as he doesn't seem to have exhibited "good behaviour". What disturbs me is the BATFE's stated reason for assuming jurisdiction. Yep, since the pistol had at one time "Moved in Interstate Commerce", that gave the Feds jurisdiction over anything done with it.

    Holy cow. The guy was doing a lot of wrong things; but what he WAS NOT DOING was engaging in "Interstate Commerce". By this reasoning if I play my guitar too loudly the Feds could enact a Federal noise ordinance and haul me in because my guitar was not made in Virginia!!

    The way these people treat the Interstate Commerce Clause, I figure the National Archives should display the constitution with a superimopsed cartoon of a huge hole opening up at the Clause and Porky Pig coming out wavint and stammering, I-i-i-i-i-interstate Commerce, Folks!! YEESH.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Well, if he had used a weapon exclusively of Virginian provenance, he might haveweaseled out of a federal case and the mandatory sentences they'll try to saddle him with.

    -ljp

  3. #3
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Virginia has adequate sanctions against this sort of thing and I am not saying I wish the dude were a free man. What my point is is that the ICC has been so stretched as to obliteraate any other part of the Constitution that the Feds want to abrogate without an amendment. Under the interpretation cited in the Washington Post article by a BATFE Special Agent, then if your toilet paper "moved in Interstate Commerce" then the Feds can tell you whch hand to wipe your butt with.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I understand your complaint. It does allow for arbitrary application of jurisdiction in almost any case they want to take because of the ICC. This more or less started with the feds wanting jurisdiction over drug cases and the old marijuana tax stamp system. Pretty lame.

    I bet it's frustrating for them here in Ohio because we make Hi-Point firearms here, which are consistently among the top ten crime recovery guns, although since they are made and distributed within Ohio, the ICC doesn't apply to anyone committing a crime here with one.

    -ljp

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Remember that Project Exile is an NRA project in cooperation with the Brady Bunch.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Maybe. Legba. Depends. Was the steel used in the manufacture of them there Hi-Points made out of state?? That would be the next stretch off the loophole.

    Also, actually the abuse of the ICC started during the Roosevelt Administration when a farmer was fined for growing his own wheat above a Federal quota because EVEN THOUGH HE WAS GOING TO USE IT TO FEED HIS OWN FAMILY AND LIVESTOCK it meant that he would NOT be buying bread "in Interstate Commerce" and thus could be fined for the planting of it. The Supreme Court upheld it, and the Feds just absolutely built a railroad tunnel through the Constitution using that decision.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Well, steel etc isn't legally within the definition of a firearm until it is actually made into one. Point taken though. I'd be curious to see the semantic posturing they would try in such a case. I'm sure they'd cherry-pick cases with drug, gang,kiddie porn, or immigration law specifications, say, and tie them all in, so as to set a precendent favorable to themselves in making such future gun cases. It would be nice to see some prosecutor get slammed on a strict application of this, though.

    -ljp

  8. #8
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    In-state production of kiddie porn is illegal federally because the cameras, photo supplies etc "moved in Interstate Commerce". Growing pot in-state is illegal because the fertilizer or gardening tools "moved in nterstate Commerce". Posessing pot is a Fed crime because the pot was grown using stuff that has "moved in Interstate Commerce".

    Now I believe the Founders would have strung up a kiddie-porn guy right in the neighborhood and without trial. Don't know if they would have minded pot, it is no worse than gin and rum and they loved their booze. But I am very sure they would have bitch-slapped anyone who suggested the ICC authorized anything we are talking about here

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •