Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Supremes Rule On Stewart


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Tman

Tman

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 493 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Interests:Firearms, in general

Posted 16 June 2005 - 01:59 PM

This just came to us via our legal staff in DC. I know, it sucks! Sorry for the news.

On November 12, 2003, in United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Gun Control Act’s machinegun prohibition was an unconstitutional extension of Congress’ Commerce Clause power as applied to the defendant for his intrastate possession of a homemade machinegun. In response, the United States filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. On June 13, 2005, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and ordered that the judgment in Stewart is vacated and remanded to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ___ (2005).”

In Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 (U.S. June 6, 2005), the defendants argued that the intrastate growth and possession of marijuana was an unconstitutional extension of Congress’ Commerce Clause power. The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that case law “firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” “When Congress decides that the ‘total incidence’ of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class” and “the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.” The court further noted that the Controlled Substances Act “is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market. Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational (and commonly utilized) means of regulating commerce in that product.” Although the commodities are different, there are strong similarities between the Stewart and Raich cases.


Your humble servant


  • 0

#2 philasteen

philasteen

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1118 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 02:33 PM

Yup. The Stewart case is deader than a doornail. That means there will be no new homemade Colt Thompsons.
  • 0

#3 Ron A

Ron A

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 641 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helena, Montana
  • Interests:Collector of Thompson guns & items<br>Colt single actions<br>Native American items - pre 1900

Posted 18 June 2005 - 01:54 PM

Its interesting how many idiots on other boards were ready to make there own FA guns. The case was a bad case from the start.

  • 0

#4 Sgt

Sgt

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern TN
  • Interests:Militaria, Chess, Tools, Sherlock Holmes, Printmaking, UFOs, Ghosts, Electronics, Comic Books, Long walks in the rain, with my Savage 1928a1. (just kidding on the last one; it doesn't have to be raining) -- Ralph

Posted 18 June 2005 - 05:16 PM

Has Stewart's punishment been decided upon?
  • 0

#5 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 19 June 2005 - 09:22 PM

QUOTE (philasteen @ Jun 16 2005, 01:33 PM)
That means there will be no new homemade Colt Thompsons.

No more Colts? Damn!! laugh.gif
  • 0

#6 Tman

Tman

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 493 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Interests:Firearms, in general

Posted 20 June 2005 - 09:41 AM

Hardrede,
I can't get anyone from Imports to return my calls. My gut feeling is that someone up there messed up and granted the importation without knowing what they were doing. It's happend before. Being in the law enforcement side of the house, I would not be doing those kind of checks. The regulatory inspectors would be handling that stuff. I'll do some asking around for you.
  • 0