Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|6.8.05 @ 12:52PM|#
this was a great article.
|6.8.05 @ 1:09PM|#
I second that!
|6.8.05 @ 1:17PM|#
Good article.
|6.8.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Hear, hear.
|6.8.05 @ 1:48PM|#
Agreed.
I think we're going to see the effects of the Raich ruling pretty immediately.
US v. Robert Wilson Stewart, Jr. goes to conference tomorrow. Basically, Stewart was arrested and charged with possessing a machinegun of his own design. This case is extremely similar to Raich in a number of ways. It was also ruled on by the 9th Circuit, who said that a home-designed, home-built machinegun does not affect interstate commerce if it is kept for personal use.
Most people are saying that the Supremes will just say that the feds do indeed have a right to regulate home-made machineguns as interstate commerce using Raich as precedent.
The optimists are hoping that the Supremes will remand it in light of the recent Raich ruling, with the hope that the 9th will stand its ground.
For more info:
PDF version of Findlaw entry.
|6.8.05 @ 1:49PM|#
What Justice Stevens meant by democratic process was 'brick wall.'
Akira, thanks for the Jesus link on yesterday's thread.
|6.8.05 @ 2:15PM|#
There has been some commentary these past days from federalist-leaning analysts along the lines of "well, it's not likely to have much practical effect anyway, so no need to get too upset."
Ok, apologies for posting again so soon, but I have to point out that how Stewart gets ruled on, especially with regard to Raich will possibly have a big effect on the gun culture.
But first some background on just how machineguns are regulated in the US. Apologies if I sound all didactic. Feel free to skip this bit if you know the law or don't care.
-------
Despite popular thought to the contrary, it is indeed legal to own fully automatic firearms in the US. However the laws are very restrictive: you have to register the firearm directly with the BATFE, pay a $200 federal tax, and wait for the feds to conduct a background check and issue approval. In 1986 Congress passed a ban on allowing any more newly manufactured full-auto weapons to be transferred to private citizens. As a result, the rather small pool of privately held FA weapons has been subject to artificial price inflation. For example, a 9mm Sten submachinegun, which probably cost all of $5 to make in WWII will generally fetch between $1,500-$2,000 today. On average, purchasing a FA weapon will probably cost somewhere between $5,000-$15,000.
-------
Back to Stewart. When the 9th Circuit court ruled that a homemade firearm of an original design and meant for personal use does not affect interstate commerce, the BATFE's offices were flooded with registration applications from people who wanted to build their own. Of course, the BATFE can't approve them, because of the legal disparity between the 9th Circuit and all of the others in the US. As a result, the BATFE has been sitting on stacks of these applications with no idea of what to do with them.
Hope this makes sense, and was at least somewhat interesting.
|6.8.05 @ 2:23PM|#
Mediageek,
I agree that gun engineering for personal use is not an interstate commerce matter.
However, since it was fully automatic, it does fall under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Especially since the GOA of 1986 forbid new manufacturing of Class III items for private possession. That seems, to me at least, to render the case moot. I'm surprised the Supremes took the case up.
|6.8.05 @ 2:29PM|#
Mediageek,
I see you wrote more while I was typing.
This is an interesting case, nevertheless. I'm shocked, just shocked, that the 9th would actually rule for a gun owner. Somebody better check the thermostat in hell.
|6.8.05 @ 2:33PM|#
kmw-
Stewart doesn't invalidate the National Firearms Act of 1934. You would still have to register the weapon with the BATFE and pay the $200 tax stamp.
The 1986 machinegun cap was passed as part of the Firearms Owner Protection Act, which despite the idiocy of the cap, actually repealed a lot of heinous stuff in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
To be completely honest, I'm not completely clear as to why Stewart invalidates the 1986 cap, but doesn't have an effect on the NFA of 1934.
|6.8.05 @ 2:36PM|#
I'm shocked, just shocked, that the 9th would actually rule for a gun owner. Somebody better check the thermostat in hell.
No kidding. What has been especially fun to watch is the way the members of various gun-related forums have reacted as they came to the realization that Raich isn't just about dope-smokin' hippies, and has a very obvious potential to impact their gun rights.
|6.8.05 @ 2:45PM|#
Does Reason give out extra money per hyperlink or something? While it may be considered more "tech-savvy" to have hyperlinks in one's online articles these days, this piece took it a bit over the top.
Matt Welch|6.8.05 @ 2:53PM|#
NaG -- What an excellent idea....
|6.8.05 @ 3:18PM|#
MW:
Great piece.
It's my theory that the powers that be are terrified of MJ because it stimulates creative and sometimes radical thinking. I personally went through a rather jolting political transformation, from an idiot dittohead Republican to an idiot who leans libertarian. One of the first thoughts that crossed my mind was "So THEY want to throw me in jail FOR THIS?!" Then THEY suddenly stop being my leaders/teachers and instead become my enemies.
|6.8.05 @ 4:12PM|#
Antonin Scalia, voting with the majority in Raiche, clarified: "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
|6.8.05 @ 5:12PM|#
I'm with NaG. I know it's a vestige of Suck style, but I don't like reading something with too many links. When I'm reading, the words that are in bold orange or blue jump out, and in my head, they "sound" different from the rest of the sentence. It's quite distracting.
|6.8.05 @ 5:21PM|#
What NaG and Steve said. I like the additional information provided by these reference links. But I'd prefer to see them at the end of the story, or boxed as a sidebar alongside the story. It's distracting not only because of the bold, orange type, but also because of the implicit suggestion that we should click through and read the hyperlink before continuing on with the original piece...
|6.8.05 @ 5:22PM|#
Sorry, forgot to add: Great piece, Matt...
Matt Welch|6.8.05 @ 5:37PM|#
What if the number of links was the same, but it was only one or two linked words, instead of whole phrases (like I did this time, though I usually don't)?
Adam|6.8.05 @ 6:10PM|#
Right on, Matt..NY Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno abandoned the medical marijuana bill in the state senate yesterday - a bill that took years of hounding him and his own personal battle with cancer to get him to support, but in better news, the Rhode Island state Senate passed a bill 34-2 on Tuesday for patients to possess 2.5 ounces or 12 plants
|6.8.05 @ 6:38PM|#
I just want to weigh in that the link stuff doesn't bother me. I actually like having other places to go check out, and I can easily not go to one site or the other if I don't want to.
It was a good article, and I am very angry about the whole thing right now. Actually, I'll have to thank Matt for making me even more angry than I was when the decision first came down, because he had to go and point out a bunch of other problems with the WoD.
Matt Welch|6.8.05 @ 6:50PM|#
Lowdog -- Here to help!
|6.8.05 @ 6:53PM|#
In regards to the link sub-thread, as far as I'm concerned, mo' links means mo' better articles.
|6.8.05 @ 10:59PM|#
I'd like to have more information, so keep the links coming. Hell, I wouldn't care if a whole article was orange, if every link went somewheres relevant. It keeps reason on the cutting edge, whereas other magazines like buisness week have to explain to their readers that the same article is online, and that the underlines in the print article would be clickable online. Will they ever get it.
|6.9.05 @ 1:53AM|#
saw-whet:
Happy to provide. :)
|6.9.05 @ 9:26AM|#
True, some links in a story can be particularly useful (like when linking to a study that you cite in your piece). But really...a link to a set of comments on wine coolers and another to a chapter summation of "The Hobbit" for the term "dragon?" At that point, it just looks like you're honestly expecting to make more money (or appear more credible) simply via the sheer number of links you manage to squeeze in.
|6.9.05 @ 1:52PM|#
NaG,
That one was probably put in there for fun.
|6.9.05 @ 2:49PM|#
If so, then it's a waste of the reader's time as a needless distraction. I'd prefer more cogent, focused writing rather than a hodge-podge of links that can lead to who-knows-what.
|6.11.05 @ 6:33PM|#
Q. on application or in job interview: Have you ever done illegal drugs?
A. Of course not.
(Unspoken explanation: since the 9th amendment protects my natural right to put whatever I damn well please in my body, there aren't any illegal drugs.)
Well, it may not fly in the real world, but it could save one from a perjury charge.
Kevin