3 ms·

> or possess in or affecting commerce Doesn't this mean that the prohibition of using such substances doesn't apply just to the moment of purchase, but to the

by GTP 4y ago

> or possess in or affecting commerce Doesn't this mean that the prohibition of using such substances doesn't apply just to the moment of purchase, but to the whole period of time that you posses a firearm? I'm not a lawyer either and I'm not even American, but this is how I would interpret it. Also it would make little sense to have a law saying that you can't be a user of illegal drugs at the moment of purchase of a firearm, but you can start using such substances afterwards.

yellowapple 4y ago
It would apply as it pertains to being "in or affecting commerce"; it'd be quite the stretch to apply that to possession outside the immediate context of a purchase/sale/transfer, though I suppose it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause. Maybe taking a gun across state lines while high would qualify? > Also it would make little sense to have a law saying that you can't be a user of illegal drugs at the moment of purchase of a firearm, but you can start using such substances afterwards. The law in question derives from the federal government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate and international commerce, which is (I would guess) why the language fixates on that aspect. The federal government doesn't otherwise have the power to infringe on the Second, Fourth, and (possibly) Tenth Amendments - as would likely be necessary to federally require gun owners to submit to random drug tests over something that one's state has made legal. Meanwhile, my state (last I checked) has laws on the books separately prohibiting intoxication (be it via cannabis, alcohol, or whatever) while in possession of a firearm; to my knowledge, most (all?) states do.
- notch656c 4y ago
  Read up on Jeremy Kettler's attempt to avoid interstate commerce and also Wickard v Filburn. You probably know about the latter but not the former. If growing your own plants with nothing but seed and material from the earth on your property, and then feeding it to your local animals is interstate commerce.... then it's hard to imagine any firearm even if made of iron pulled from the earth underneath you and machined on site and never sold to anyone or hell even fired could be considered to not have interstate nexus.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    Those are what I was alluding to when I said "it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause" :) Both those cases entailed the defendants manufacturing something, which would be where the Feds would claim jurisdiction via their jurisdiction over interstate commerce. It's harder to make that argument w.r.t. something after a retail sale has already concluded (i.e. after the interstate commerce has happened). I wouldn't doubt the Feds would try to assert that literally everything that ever happens is or pertains to "interstate commerce", but that'd be sufficiently broad as to invalidate all sorts of other judicial precedents if actually held up in court.
    - notch656c 4y ago
      Wait until you read the gun free school zone act, which seemingly makes it interstate commerce merely to be on a public property proximal but not on school property, no matter you have no intent to interact with the school or the school property in any way.
- GTP 4y ago
  So in the end using drugs while possesing a firearm makes it worse, it's just that those aren't federal laws but still apply.

by GTP 4y ago

yellowapple 4y ago

It would apply as it pertains to being "in or affecting commerce"; it'd be quite the stretch to apply that to possession outside the immediate context of a purchase/sale/transfer, though I suppose it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause. Maybe taking a gun across state lines while high would qualify? > Also it would make little sense to have a law saying that you can't be a user of illegal drugs at the moment of purchase of a firearm, but you can start using such substances afterwards. The law in question derives from the federal government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate and international commerce, which is (I would guess) why the language fixates on that aspect. The federal government doesn't otherwise have the power to infringe on the Second, Fourth, and (possibly) Tenth Amendments - as would likely be necessary to federally require gun owners to submit to random drug tests over something that one's state has made legal. Meanwhile, my state (last I checked) has laws on the books separately prohibiting intoxication (be it via cannabis, alcohol, or whatever) while in possession of a firearm; to my knowledge, most (all?) states do.

notch656c 4y ago
Read up on Jeremy Kettler's attempt to avoid interstate commerce and also Wickard v Filburn. You probably know about the latter but not the former. If growing your own plants with nothing but seed and material from the earth on your property, and then feeding it to your local animals is interstate commerce.... then it's hard to imagine any firearm even if made of iron pulled from the earth underneath you and machined on site and never sold to anyone or hell even fired could be considered to not have interstate nexus.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  Those are what I was alluding to when I said "it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause" :) Both those cases entailed the defendants manufacturing something, which would be where the Feds would claim jurisdiction via their jurisdiction over interstate commerce. It's harder to make that argument w.r.t. something after a retail sale has already concluded (i.e. after the interstate commerce has happened). I wouldn't doubt the Feds would try to assert that literally everything that ever happens is or pertains to "interstate commerce", but that'd be sufficiently broad as to invalidate all sorts of other judicial precedents if actually held up in court.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    Wait until you read the gun free school zone act, which seemingly makes it interstate commerce merely to be on a public property proximal but not on school property, no matter you have no intent to interact with the school or the school property in any way.
GTP 4y ago
So in the end using drugs while possesing a firearm makes it worse, it's just that those aren't federal laws but still apply.