You shouldn't sleep so easily over the definition of "interstate commerce".brianko wrote:18USC922q:crochetetc wrote:ok so I am wondering...no chl yet in the works.. If I carry a gun in the car hidden but within reach. I cannot go through the car pool and pick up my child unless I have a chl. My husband says you cannot get within 1000 feet of the school with it in the vehicle.
Is that right?
My understanding is that the prosecutor must prove that the possession of said gun was involved in "interstate or foreign commerce." (This was the result of a Supreme Court decision that knocked down the original gun-free zone law.)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
I won't lose sleep over this, as there isn't a state line within an hour's drive of Dallas.
The obvious point is that if the gun, or any of its components, right down to the iron ore, ever moved across state lines, then the firearm "has moved in or ... affects interstate ... commerce".
What's more worrisome is the specific language:
"a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce"
Ever since Wickard v. Filburn (1942) ruled that corn grown on a farmer's own land, and used exclusively to feed his own livestock and family, "affected" interstate commerce, the federal government has had free rein to declare anything and everything "interstate".
Most recently this was affirmed in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where SCOTUS declared that marijuana grown in one's own home "affects" interstate commerce because the grower-slash-dealer no longer has to buy from other states or countries.
It's bizarre.