Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« California "unsafe handgun" rules enjoined | Main | Biden moves to keep guns out of the hands of political advisors »

Supreme Court heating up: two petitions for cert.

Posted by David Hardy · 22 March 2023 09:42 AM

Seekins v. United States. Defendant, a convicted felon given a four year sentence for possessing two shotgun shells, appeals on the basis of the Commerce Clause. The 5th Circuit upheld his conviction based on the argument (which most other circuits have accepted) that there is a sufficient connection with interstate commerce if the shells were shown to ever have moved in such commerce in the past.

United States v. Rahimi. Also a 5th Circuit case. The circuit struck down the prohibition on arms possession by persons subject to a domestic violence restraining order. The government took this one up since the facts are terrible for the defendant, who was a violent type who should've been behind bars.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

FW | March 22, 2023 11:41 AM | Reply

However, the concept of regulating things under the commerce clause is another of those decisions pulled out from under a judge's robe and smeared on the Constitution.

Try reading opinions, law texts, and constitutional scholarly works from before 1900. One finds that things and stuff "affecting" commerce are not part of the commerce clause. In fact, an analysis of the power to regulate commerce proves that it is nothing more than the power to develop agreements with foreign nations, among (Not between as the stupid John Marshall remarked) the several states (It's among because there are MORE than 2 involved, DUH!), and with indian Tribes. This power is among governmental bodies concerning the buying, selling, and movement of goods and services but not even covering the vessels of transport (another lie) or the things themselves. It wasn't until 10905 when Holmes invented from whole cloth the doctrine of the stream of commerce that control over manufacturing began.

The constitution even prohibits excise taxes on everything exported from a state, and that means everything that is shipped from inside a state to somewhere else, another state or nation. The states are independent nations (ever hear of a secretary of nation - learn the meanings of the words) who have joined in a Union. The feds, esp the courts cheat the people every time.

All these police power laws at the feral level are outside the purview of the feds because police powers were retained by the states and not delegated to the feds.

Anonymous | March 23, 2023 10:10 AM | Reply

The correct decision would be fore the USSC to accept the Seekins case, and find that a greater nexus than 'having crossed state lines sometime' is needed....

Which would eviscerate Wickard v. Filburn and almost a century of jurisprudence based on that very bad decision.

Leave a comment