Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,204 Posts
Any lawyer types understand the reasoning behind these two statements in the affidavit?

Engraved upon the Windham AR-15 is the following: "Windham, ME, U.S.A." Engraved upon the Mossberg shotgun is the following: "MADE IN USA, NEW HAVEN, CONN." Accordingly, the firearms had previously been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.
Engraved upon the Taurus .38 revolver, serial number PA40054, is the following: "MADE IN BRAZIL." Accordingly, the firearm had previously been shipped or transported in foreign commerce.
What was the purpose of this? Why does it pertain to the accused in this case? What would be different if it were a Glock made in Smyrna, GA?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
I personally talked to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (federal prosecutor) about this some years ago.
The "commerce clause" of the constitution is the justification for most of the gun laws Congress passes.
In order for the Feds to have the power to regulate some issue for this reason, it must either be involved in interstate commerce or at least affecting interstate commerce.

When guns are made (or assembled) in State A and shipped to other states, this easily satisfies the "interstate commerce" nexus.

The U. S. A. O. will not indict a criminal case where only some small parts of a gun moved in interstate commerce, or the raw materials (billet steel, raw lumber, etc.)
They want clear-cut interstate movement of working guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,835 Posts
I personally talked to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (federal prosecutor) about this some years ago.
The "commerce clause" of the constitution is the justification for most of the gun laws Congress passes.
In order for the Feds to have the power to regulate some issue for this reason, it must either be involved in interstate commerce or at least affecting interstate commerce.

When guns are made (or assembled) in State A and shipped to other states, this easily satisfies the "interstate commerce" nexus.

The U. S. A. O. will not indict a criminal case where only some small parts of a gun moved in interstate commerce, or the raw materials (billet steel, raw lumber, etc.)
They want clear-cut interstate movement of working guns.
Like the scissor argument from the Amish hate crime case?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,204 Posts
Ok thanks, that's a good explanation.

So I am left to infer that had the handgun in this scenario been a Glock made in GA, the Fed would not have seized or prosecuted for it. Would this be correct? It would then be left to the state to enforce any violations?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
...
So I am left to infer that had the handgun in this scenario been a Glock made in GA, the Fed would not have seized or prosecuted for it. Would this be correct? ...
I don't know how much of a 4th generation Glock is "made" in Georgia.
Do they make the polymer frames here?
Do they forge the barrels and mill the slides out of steel?
Do they stamp and grind and polish the small parts?
Does all of this take place in Georgia?

I assume that Glocks are still mostly made up of Austrian components that are shipped to the USA and mated with USA-made frames (since 2012 or so) and assembled in Smyrna. I assume components like pins and screws and springs are outsourced from other suppliers within the US or Canada and shipped to Smyrna for use in assembling those Glocks.

Anyhow, if major components of the weapon came from any source outside of Georgia, the feds would say that the "firearm" (not just counting the frame, but the gun itself) is an item that has moved in interstate commerce, and therefore its subsequent possession can be restricted by federal law.

See this case, from 2005, where the federal court discusses what it means to have a Glock slide stamped made in Austria while also saying Smyrna, GA.
http://www.ecases.us/case/ca11/41630/usa-v-antonio-deshawn-gipson
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
A different issue this case raises:

Why should a person have to SURRENDER firearms to the SHERIFF??

If the person in question is not legally disqualified from owning or buying firearms, that person should be able to keep what they have, up until the day they get convicted or have a family violence restraining order issued against them.

AT THAT POINT, the person should be allowed to CHOOSE whether to surrender the guns to law enforcement (a quick and easy, though wasteful, solution), or SELL them to qualified buyers (either individuals or FFL dealers. And since time would be of the essence, circumstances would probably dictate a multi-gun sale to a local gun store or pawn shop).

Why would a Court order a person to give their guns to the government, when those guns themselves are not contraband, nor needed as evidence in any case?

EVEN IN CALIFORNIA, when the Courts issue a family violence restraining order on a gun owner, they give that gun owner the option of selling those guns to an FFL dealer, instead of turning them in to the cops.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/cr162.pdf
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
JiG,

Read Lopez v. United States. It is a case about a man carrying a gun in a school zone, but those who value freedom thought it was a first step toward reigning in a Congress that had for more than half a century abused its Commerce Clause powers to reach into areas of law having nothing to do with interstate or foreign commerce.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/case.html

It turned out to be just an interesting historical footnote meaning nothing. The drug war put the final nail in the coffin when Scalia joined Justice Stevens' opinion to rule that marijuana grown for home use, and not for sale, interstate or intrastate, still fell within Congress's power to regulate under the commerce clause. Raich v. Gonzalez https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZO.html If you have a few more minutes, read Justice Thomas's dissent. It is absolutely beautiful and explains in full why I believe he is the only Justice actually qualified to sit on that court.

Raich v. Gonzalez cited Wickard v. Filburn with approval. Wickard v. Filburn was a New Deal era case that dramatically expanded the power of Congress. The Commerce Clause actually gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The New Deal era Congress set up all sorts of economic regulations that they never taught you about in school. For instance, if you are a dry cleaner, they set up boards and authorities made up of your competitors to regulate how you run your business and the prices you charge. People were put in jail, prosecuted, for trying to compete and charge lower prices. One case I read about was a dry cleaner whose defense was, yes, his Broadway competitors could very well survive on the mandated price that they had set up, but he, several blocks off Broadway, could attract customers only by charging a lower price. He was found guilty and jailed and run out of business. Less competition was seen as a good thing during the New Deal.

Anyway, Wickard v. Filburn was a case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. A farmer was prosecuted for growing more wheat than the regulations permitted. The farmer's defense was that he grew the wheat for his own use. He baked bread. He fed it to his pigs. He kept some for planting next year. He sold none of it. He did not sell it across state lines, or to foreign countries, or to Indian tribes. He did not even sell to his neighbors. He was not engaging in commerce at all, much less interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court, fearful of losing power through Roosevelt's court packing scheme, had gotten the message to stop striking down New Deal legislation on the ground that it was not authorized by the constitution. The Court held that the regulation was a valid exercise of power under the commerce clause. How? Well, the Court reasoned, what if everybody grew more wheat than the government permitted under the regulation at home and used it at home and did not sell it? What if? That would "substantially affect" interstate commerce, wouldn't it? So the test became that Congress could regulate anything that would substantially affect interstate commerce.

Lopez, the gun free school zone act case referred to above, was the first case to reign in this expanded version of commerce clause powers, holding that there is no interstate commerce connection to what was basically an exercise of regular police power by Congress. No problem, Congress rewrote the law with a finding about interstate commerce and the substantial effect that crime in school zones has upon interstate commerce (chuckle). Then along came Raich and the drug warriors could not resist doing anything to keep marijuana illegal under federal law, and they reaffirmed Wickard, the wheat case. Wickard was the precedent. What if everybody grew their own marijuana at home? Wouldn't that substantially affect the interstate commerce in marijuana? LOL!

It was a naked power grab, and a "conservative" Justice (Scalia) helped.

Disgusted, Thomas wrote:

The substantial effects test is easily manipulated for another reason. This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U.S., at 613 ("[T]hus far in our Nation's history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature" (emphasis added)); Lopez, supra, at 560. To evade even that modest restriction on federal power, the majority defines economic activity in the broadest possible terms as the " 'the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.' "7 Ante, at 23 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966) (hereinafter Webster's 3d). This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. See ante, at 8-9 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).​
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Ok thanks, that's a good explanation.

So I am left to infer that had the handgun in this scenario been a Glock made in GA, the Fed would not have seized or prosecuted for it. Would this be correct? It would then be left to the state to enforce any violations?
Read my lengthy post above first, and then ask the question:

What if everybody manufactured handguns and sold them intrastate?

Sigh. They have left no way around it. Congress has power almost without limitation.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,519 Posts
The purpose is to start the process by which the Sheriff could be removed from office and a replacement named.

See Code section 45-5-6. Public official investigated by special commission upon indictment; gubernatorial review if commission recommends suspension; suspension; reinstatement; replacement officer.
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,900 Posts
Disgusted, Thomas wrote:

The substantial effects test is easily manipulated for another reason. This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U.S., at 613 ("[T]hus far in our Nation's history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature" (emphasis added)); Lopez, supra, at 560. To evade even that modest restriction on federal power, the majority defines economic activity in the broadest possible terms as the " 'the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.' "7 Ante, at 23 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966) (hereinafter Webster's 3d). This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. See ante, at 8-9 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).​
He nailed, it but just as we see, the smallest created goverment's will grant themselves more power until they reach absolute power, such as we have now reached and we are just sitting by, waiting for the last shoe to drop.
 

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,386 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
Read my lengthy post above first, and then ask the question:

What if everybody manufactured handguns and sold them intrastate?

Sigh. They have left no way around it. Congress has power almost without limitation.
Damn fine posts, both of them. I am of the opinion that when this great experiment is over historians will cite Wickard and the 16th amendment will as key events contributing to it's demise.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,904 Posts
Did Wesley Shane Rathel actually think he could get away with this crime? He threw away his career and his Second Amendment Rights (now a convicted felon) for a few hundred dollars that he now has to pay back. How stupid is that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
Read my lengthy post above first, and then ask the question:

What if everybody manufactured handguns and sold them intrastate?

Sigh. They have left no way around it. Congress has power almost without limitation.
damn...MP started to realize there's no such thing as limited government. i wonder what happened.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top