LegalReader.com  ·  Legal News, Analysis, & Commentary

News & Politics

Lawyers, Guns and Money


— November 15, 2003

9th Circuit’s Commerce Clause application may have medical pot implications

In a ruling with medical pot implications, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the federal government cannot prosecute an Arizona man who assembled and kept a machine gun at his home but never bought or sold it.

United States v. Stewart, 03 C.D.O.S. 9805, is the latest 9th Circuit case applying the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause rulings. In continuing to push that jurisprudence in bold new directions, the court may be a step closer to handing the government a loss in another significant area — the Justice Department’s crackdown on California’s medical marijuana laws.

“Every word in it is magnificent,” declared Boston University constitutional law professor Randy Barnett — who argued one of two pending medical marijuana cases at the 9th Circuit — after reading Thursday’s decision.

The Recorder reports the details here via Law.com. The 9th Circuit’s opinion in the case (Kozinski, J.) is here (PDF).


9th Circuit’s Commerce Clause application may have medical pot implications

In a ruling with medical pot implications, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the federal government cannot prosecute an Arizona man who assembled and kept a machine gun at his home but never bought or sold it.

United States v. Stewart, 03 C.D.O.S. 9805, is the latest 9th Circuit case applying the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause rulings. In continuing to push that jurisprudence in bold new directions, the court may be a step closer to handing the government a loss in another significant area — the Justice Department’s crackdown on California’s medical marijuana laws.

“Every word in it is magnificent,” declared Boston University constitutional law professor Randy Barnett — who argued one of two pending medical marijuana cases at the 9th Circuit — after reading Thursday’s decision.

The Recorder reports the details here via Law.com. The 9th Circuit’s opinion in the case (Kozinski, J.) is here (PDF).

Join the conversation!