Curiosity

[Bill_in_VA]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

Bill,
what you wrote is accurate, except you gloss over the caveat that the item must have been in "interstate or international commerce". I wonder if a bring back from WW whatever has been in "commerce"?

I’m not entirely sure I’m following your comment, Don. But even if a gun has moved in interstate commerce (as likely 100% of WW bring backs have), pre-1968 there was no requirement that a gun have a serial number; thus, if it never had one assigned by the manufacturer there’s no prohibition on possession or transfer. (Again, it hinges on whether a serial number was removed, altered, or obliterated. You can’t remove/alter/obliterate something that never existed in the first place.) Anyway, I believe the reference to interstate commerce in the USC is there to provide the basis for the fed’s authority.
Back to the question of whether or not the gun has ever moved in interstate commerce, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) set the precedent that virtually anything can be declared as affecting/affected by interstate commerce. US v. Stewart (2003) and Ashcroft v. Raisch/Gonzales v. Raisch (2005) effectively upheld Wickard.

[ithacaartist]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_VA

...Wickard v. Filburn (1942) set the precedent that virtually anything can be declared as affecting/affected by interstate commerce...

I looked this one up and this seems pretty close. In this case, it was a lack of participating in interstate commerce that was seen to affect interstate commerce, thus within the Agriculture Dept's realm of calling the shots. The logic, I think, is similar to the conclusion that not making a choice is, itself, a choice.

WWII was fresh when this was argued, a few months old. Everybody was expected to pull for the war effort. I wonder if it had any dffect on the decision.