From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Mon May 22 2000 - 13:56:34 MDT
This past monday, in case it wasn't in your local paper (and considering they
way they lean usually, it probably wasn't), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the defendant, Lopez, in deciding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act is
unconstitutional in its overly broad claim under the Commerce Clause. They ruled
that a person carrying a weapon on school grounds or within 1000 feet of school
grounds does not fit the definition of engaging in interstate commerce. With
this ruling, we have one more nail in the coffin of gun control. The fact this
came so soon after the Million Mutha March (oops, make that the 100,000 mom
march) indicates that the conservative block of Rhenquist, O'Connor, Kennedy,
Scalia, and Thomas that steadily maintains the fundamental principle that "Every
law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated by
the Constitution", will likely continue on this track when and if it hears US v.
Emerson next year, and that even if the 'million' mad muthas are able to
shrewify their way into forcing congress to pass a registration law, it will
likely be struck down based on this and other precendents. Note that ALL gun
control laws at the federal level are solely based upon the Commerce Clause,
while state and local laws are based on US. v. Miller..and US. v. Emerson
overturns US v. Miller... Bye, Bye, Rosie O'Donnell, Bye, Bye, Sarah Brady.
Don't let the door hit you.....
The Court also ruled that the Violence Against Women Act, which enables women to
sue people they claim raped them even when the accused are aquitted or not
indicted on the charge, was struck down on a similar basis. This basically helps
end the past few years of frivolous abuse of rape and workplace harassment
laws. The previous argument for the Commerce Clause basis for the law is a
legal theory called the Aggregation Theory, where one incident may not have a
measurable effect on commerce, many such incidents do. Congress claimed in the
VAWA that "gender motivated violence deters women from engaging in employment in
insterstate commerce" as the legal basis for the law. The Court was unwilling to
swallow the aggregate theory logic, and I don't think I do either. I mean,
anti-gun motivated state sanctioned violence deters me from engaging in
employment in interstate commerce with companies in Massachusetts. I want a
lawyer... <g>
Assuming Bush gets elected, I forsee US. v. Emerson passing the Court with a
devastating victory for gun owner rights and the 2nd Amendment.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:45 MST