A participant in a firearms/politics mailing list I belong to (fap) posted about Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in Raisch Here is the link he gave, http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/06/implications_fo.html and this includes a quote from the opinion (which I haven't read or even cite-checked.)
----- Seizing upon our language in Lopez that the statute prohibiting gun possession in school zones was "not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated," 514 U.S., at 561, the Court appears to reason that the placement of local activity in a comprehensive scheme confirms that it is essential to that scheme. Ante, at 21?22. If the Court is right, then Lopez stands for nothing more than a drafting guide: Congress should have described the relevant crime as "transfer or possession of a firearm anywhere in the nation" thus including commercial and noncommercial activity, and clearly encompassing some activity with assuredly substantial effect on interstate commerce. Had it done so, the majority hints, we would have sustained its authority to regulate possession of firearms in school zones. ----- Does this means that the commerce clause covers *everything* if is properly drafted? -- --henry schaffer P.S. [Randy Barnett, June 8, 2005 at 3:05pm] has some comments on the case in our moderator's blog http://volokh.com/ _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
