Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Obama coming to Portsmouth Tuesday Aug 11- Govt Healthcare  (Read 11475 times)

D. Stewart

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: Obama coming to Portsmouth Tuesday Aug 11- Govt Healthcare
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2009, 04:59:07 pm »

That law was held unconstitutional in 1995.

I had posted to MSNBC's blog...

Quote
What is with this hysteria?  Someone exercising their natural rights should not be news.  The un-American behavior of the politicians should be.  And the sneaky, underhanded business of locating this event in a school where they figure they can use the federal law 18 USC 922(q) to persecute and prosecute people who are following state law and their constitutions is an outrage.  The gun-free school zones act must be rescinded, and if the feds don't do it then New Hampshire should force the issue by seceding.

so I am extremely excited to hear that 922(q) has case law opposing it.  What court(s) held it to be unconstitutional, and which constitution (state or fed or both)?
Logged

TEBON

  • Guest
Re: Obama coming to Portsmouth Tuesday Aug 11- Govt Healthcare
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2009, 05:42:56 pm »

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=138130&id=624641163&l=9169dd1bbe

Joey for President and the crew


the man:  Markus!






everytime a chant started about them going home on a bus I heard these people say that they came on their own.  The bus had MA plates.  A bus back to NY was coming on the other side.


these fellas were looking for a fight.




check out a few more at the link at the top:

for greeting cards of these and other beautiful pics of NH visit:   http://antonlee.redbubble.com and remember a portion of any proceeds go directly to CD Evolution.org
Logged

NoLibertyInCA

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Obama coming to Portsmouth Tuesday Aug 11- Govt Healthcare
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2009, 06:16:58 pm »

That law was held unconstitutional in 1995.

It was, but unfortunately Congress re-enacted it by adding a few words about interstate commerce, thereby getting around SCOTUS's objections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

We actually have a state version of that one out here in CA as well. In one of the cases being prosecuted out here, against a peaceful open carry activist, an activist judge decided to redefine the plain English term "private property" to mean something entirely different so that the prosecution could continue unimpeded.  :(

Another news article where the writer is aghast at the NH man simply choosing to exercise his constitutional right in a lawful way:  ::)

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/616408
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Obama coming to Portsmouth Tuesday Aug 11- Govt Healthcare
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2009, 07:08:29 pm »

That law was held unconstitutional in 1995.

It was, but unfortunately Congress re-enacted it by adding a few words about interstate commerce, thereby getting around SCOTUS's objections:


That was in 1996. See U.S. v. Morrison (2000). Congress didn't add anything to get around interstate commerce. Here's what the law now says:

Quote
"It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce
at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

But here's what the Supreme Court said in the 1995 case that invalidated the original statute:

Quote
"(O)ur case law has not been clear whether an activity must "affect" or "substantially affect" interstate commerce in order to be within Congress' power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause. [T]he Court has never declared that "Congress may use a relatively trivial impact on commerce as an excuse for broad general regulation of state or private activities[.] We conclude, consistent with the great weight of our case law, that the proper test requires an analysis of whether the regulated activity "substantially affects" interstate commerce. (all citations, quotations etc. omitted)

On the statute's face, the new law already fails. But the Supreme Court goes on:

Quote
[The statute] is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. [The statute] is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

...

The Government's essential contention ... is that we may determine here that [the statute] is valid because possession of a firearm in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce. The Government argues that possession of a firearm in a school zone may result in violent crime and that violent crime can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy[.]

...

We pause to consider the implications of the Government's arguments. The Government admits, under its "costs of crime" reasoning, that Congress could regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce. Similarly, under the Government's "national productivity" reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens: family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody), for example. ... Thus, if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.

...

The possession of ... a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.

To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. ... The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further.

Quite explicitly: a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 09:26:33 pm by B.D. Ross »
Logged

Isophix

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re: Obama coming to Portsmouth Tuesday Aug 11- Govt Healthcare
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2009, 08:39:15 pm »

The law had a "ever moved in interstate commerce" phrase added into it, to try to bring it into compliance with the constitutional requirements...

However, there is a good deal of opinion from legal types, who believe that the law would still be unconstitutional, as the law itself has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

Simply saying that carrying a gun that once was in interstate commerce has a current effect on interstate commerce is a falicy.

That logic could be used to regulate anything.

For example, a "person who has ever crossed state lines, or had contact with someone who has crossed state lines", could be used to regulate any action or item.

If you want a more through explanation, then check this out: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+637
Logged

NoLibertyInCA

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Obama coming to Portsmouth Tuesday Aug 11- Govt Healthcare
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2009, 08:56:54 pm »

Uh-oh, the reactionary progressives are starting on their usual "politics of personal destruction" tactic:  >:(

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/08/12/william_kostric/

You all are even mentioned:

"The profile also includes, as one of Kostric's "Top 12 friends," the Free State Movement, a group organizing libertarians to move to New Hampshire and expand on the state's "Live Free or Die" credo, and ultimately secede from the union."

The two videos here are priceless, Chris Matthews got his hat handed to him, IMHO.

http://freekeene.com/2009/08/11/nh-activist-and-free-keene-supporter-makes-national-waves/
Logged

Fishercat

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
Re: Obama coming to Portsmouth Tuesday Aug 11- Govt Healthcare
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2009, 09:47:19 pm »


http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/08/12/william_kostric/

You all are even mentioned:

"The profile also includes, as one of Kostric's "Top 12 friends," the Free State Movement, a group organizing libertarians to move to New Hampshire and expand on the state's "Live Free or Die" credo, and ultimately secede from the union."


Know how to use Google?  Get paid big $$$.   Work from your own home!!!  Zero cost!  Amazing results!  Degree in journalism from a liberal arts school a +.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up