Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act

[yukonjack]

The case is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and Roscoe Filburn did, in fact, live in Ohio. http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/06-31.pdf this is a link to Gonzales v Raich - a more recent case that essentially upholds Wickard v Filburn.

Feel free to believe what you want but the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld congress' usurpation of power and regulatory authority based on a very, very liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

In the wickard case the guy grew wheat for his own use on his own farm. He ran afoul of some federal agency as a result. The wheat never left his farm, was never involved in commerce in any way. The SCOTUS found against him for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

Gonzales stemmed from CA making it legal for Doctors (MD's) to prescribe marijuana. The feds said no. CA said the feds didn't have jurisdiction because the MJ was CA grown and produced. SCOTUS said too bad... for the same reasons enumerated in Wickard.

Silly yes. Reality definitely.

Wheat not apples. A commercial farmer who grows a crop for sale on the open market place versus Joe Citizen who grows apples solely for his own consumption are not in the same class of producers. Your reading way to much into this decision. Your trying to take a very small paint brush and paint the whole side of the barn in a single stroke. I'd suggest you go back and reread Wickard.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html


The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial....

If you have a cite for a case of an individual growing apples for personal consumption, or any crop, that suffered some kind of legal sanction as a result of the Wickard decision then please post it.

The key here is personal private consumption by an individual that is not and has never been involved in the growing of crops for sale on the open market.

 

[omegis13]

Wheat not apples. A commercial farmer who grows a crop for sale on the open market place versus Joe Citizen who grows apples solely for his own consumption are not in the same class of producers. Your reading way to much into this decision. Your trying to take a very small paint brush and paint the whole side of the barn in a single stroke. I'd suggest you go back and reread Wickard.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html


The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial....

If you have a cite for a case of an individual growing apples for personal consumption, or any crop, that suffered some kind of legal sanction as a result of the Wickard decision then please post it.

The key here is personal private consumption by an individual that is not and has never been involved in the growing of crops for sale on the open market.

Actually, you need to read Raich. Angel Raich was growing medical cannabis for personal consumption, for which he had a prescription, in California. All materials were sourced in California. However, SCOTUS upheld that even producing a product, even one that was for personal consumption only that was produced 100% within a single state, impacted interstate commerce as the production and use interfered with the demand side of the market. Yeah, it's pretty %#$^ed up.

 

[Werewolf]

Oh please: Are you really that dense yukonjack?

I said the case was about wheat in my original post! The apples story was a simple allegory to make it easy for guys like you to understand. Here's a link to the definition of allegory since you obviously don't grasp the concept: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory

But what the hell if it'll make you feel better I give up!

You're right! The interstate commerce clause is meaningless. All the regulatory laws that stemmed from the wickard and raiche cases are not really on the books and all the lawyers, congress people and everyone else who uses the wickard decision and Raiche are morons who have no clue.

Oh and by the way - when OK passes it's own version of the TN and MT laws be sure to build yerself a machine gun made only from parts made in OK. Make sure you let the ATF know about it so you can thumb yer nose at 'em and point to OK's law because since you're right ATF won't have jurisdiction.

Please let me know how that works out for ya...

Wheat not apples. A commercial farmer who grows a crop for sale on the open market place versus Joe Citizen who grows apples solely for his own consumption are not in the same class of producers. Your reading way to much into this decision. Your trying to take a very small paint brush and paint the whole side of the barn in a single stroke. I'd suggest you go back and reread Wickard.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html


The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial....

If you have a cite for a case of an individual growing apples for personal consumption, or any crop, that suffered some kind of legal sanction as a result of the Wickard decision then please post it.

The key here is personal private consumption by an individual that is not and has never been involved in the growing of crops for sale on the open market.

Didn't bother to read the whole decision did ya? SCOTUS found against Wickard. He was subject to the USDA quotas and for the allegorical reasons I stated in my original post. I won't reiterate them here. It'd be a waste of bandwidth your limited intellect doesn't rate.

 

[458 SOCOM]

Werewolf I see that you are a newcomer still after almost 4 years of being a registered user. If you keep up the name calling and bashing of people, then I hope it will be your last for a while.
Please don't get in an uproar when someone on this site doesn't agree with you 100%. Also please don't fall in the trap thinking you have the most intellect on this board, because there are others on this board who are 10 times smarter. And before you ask, all I will say is you must be out of my league.