Ammo For Sale

« « Welcome Back, Barbarino | Home | Local blogs in the news » »

Get your machine gun on

I mentioned earlier that the DOJ was asking the Supreme Court to review the Stewart case. Jed has much more on the impact of this, including a link to this tidbit:

If Stewart is overturned by the USSC then all laws based on the constitutional authorization to regulate interstate commerce will become easy targets for overturning. The only “out” the USSC will have here is the very narrow reading of the constitution and applying it’s provison to the origin of the materials used by Stewart to manufacture his machinegun. (sic)


If the 9th’s decision is upheld then congress will have to open up the NFA to revision. Furthermore, people all across the country will NOT be FEDERALLY prohibited from building their own machineguns. State laws will remain unaffected until they are challenged based on the Stewart ruling. This will seriously jeopardize the power of the congress.

Read the whole thing. Both of them.

7 Responses to “Get your machine gun on”

  1. Heartless Libertarian Says:

    What must really scare the bejeebers out of the Brady people and their allies in Congress is the fact that backyard gunsmiths in places like Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa can and do build real, honest to God, select fire Kalashnikovs.

    Given a set of blueprints, I’m sure competent hobbyists with the requisite tools can easily do the same thing here. It’s just a few bits of metal shaped in a particular way.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    Heh. And they don’t even have Home Depot!

  3. Heartless Libertarian Says:

    After reading that first quote over a couple more times, I’m pretty sure the guy meant to say if SCOTUS upholds Stewart…sinc overturning the 9th Circuit’s ruling would affirm the fedgov’s jurisdiction in the case.

  4. Heartless Libertarian Says:

    Oh, and just think…with access to CAD drawings and compatible copmuter operated milling machines (in state, of course) you can make the requisite naughty bits to turn just about any “assault weapon” into a real assault rifle. Imagine a Mr. Blasty select fire.

  5. Heartless Libertarian Says:

    Extremely Important Supreme Court Cases
    Or, why getting strict constructionist judges and Justices on the bench is critical.

  6. Brutal Hugger Says:

    Wickard is bad law and everybody agrees it was an overreach. Unfortunately, it’s precedent and we’ve built generations of federal law on it. Pulling that thread could unravel a huge tapestry of federal law. This might be desirable, but it’s exactly why the Court won’t do it.

    If you can overturn Wickard without throwing out whole volumes of the USC, it’s debatable. Perhaps there are good arguments on this score, though I’m not familiar with any (not that I’ve looked).

    Given that this case isn’t really anything like Lopez or Morrison, I’m pessimistic as to a good outcome. The fact that the pieces are purchased interstate doesn’t help.

  7. Xrlq Says:

    How are state laws supposed to be challenged under the Stewart? States’ powers aren’t based on the commerce clause.