Friday, September 29, 2006

Why is it...

That every time a gun rights case gets beyond the circuit; the defendant is some kind of scumbag; or the case itself is argued on peripheral elements?

Someone on the NOR brought up the Maadi-Griffin .50bmg handgun/rifle kits that Bob Stewart used to sell; before he got his corrupt, convicted felon ass hauled unjustly to prison for doing so.

He ended up getting convicted for having unlicensed machine guns, and the case was overturned on appeal; on the grounds that the commerce clause which justified the law he was "violating" in the first place, did not extend to items that had ever been in interstate commerce.

Clearly Stewart was wrongly arrested, and wrongly convicted; and even the ninth circuit (who generally hate guns, and states rights) agreed; but the supremes decided not to hear the case (they dranted cert, but sent the case back to the circuit without re-hearing); instead saying that US v. Raich was controlling and sending it back to the ninth (who have not yet reheard the case), when clearly Lopez and Morrison were the controlling decisions.

Why do I say he'’s a scumbag? Well it could be the fact that he is a white supremacist who created the Maadi-Griffin for use in the racial holy wars he believed to be coming; or it could be the fact that he tried to have a fellow inmate murder a judge who ruled against him…

What I wouldn't give for one good solid, successful, upstanding gun rights defendant, who was clearly screwed over; and who managed to take his case all the way to the supremes.

All the way back to Miller, they'’ve only heard marginal cases and scumbag defendants.