top | item 33761372 (no title) DuskStar | 3 years ago I'd personally put US v. Miller on the list instead of DC v. Heller.Wickard v. Filburn deserves a mention too.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Millerhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn discuss order hn newest narrator|3 years ago Oh yeah, Wickard is ridiculous. If you grow wheat in your backyard to feed to your own pigs, that's interstate commerce. sokoloff|3 years ago I’ll raise you a Gonzales v Raich, wherein the cultivation of 6 marijuana plants in a backyard for personal use is interstate commerce.https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html bbarn|3 years ago Miller is an interesting one. Ruled that only weapons of war were protected, and now we're hearing "weapons of war have no place with the people" DuskStar|3 years ago Don't forget "machine guns aren't weapons of war" which is also quite a bit of a head scratcher!
narrator|3 years ago Oh yeah, Wickard is ridiculous. If you grow wheat in your backyard to feed to your own pigs, that's interstate commerce. sokoloff|3 years ago I’ll raise you a Gonzales v Raich, wherein the cultivation of 6 marijuana plants in a backyard for personal use is interstate commerce.https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
sokoloff|3 years ago I’ll raise you a Gonzales v Raich, wherein the cultivation of 6 marijuana plants in a backyard for personal use is interstate commerce.https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
bbarn|3 years ago Miller is an interesting one. Ruled that only weapons of war were protected, and now we're hearing "weapons of war have no place with the people" DuskStar|3 years ago Don't forget "machine guns aren't weapons of war" which is also quite a bit of a head scratcher!
DuskStar|3 years ago Don't forget "machine guns aren't weapons of war" which is also quite a bit of a head scratcher!
narrator|3 years ago
sokoloff|3 years ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
bbarn|3 years ago
DuskStar|3 years ago