Prohibited Friend and Ammunition

[JRswack]

I'd never post anything on the classified section. That would likely involve meeting someone on here, and they'd probably just kill me and take my stuff....which would cause an unacceptable drop in my wife's household income.

So, you are welcome to have anything I post in the classifieds. No charge (:

Can you repost your items.

[Gun]

I knew someone who bought gas, and didn't even own a car yet, or a lawnmower.

[Royinmontco]

I knew someone who bought gas, and didn't even own a car yet, or a lawnmower.

A failing business, perhaps?

(ignore the obvious like: boat, motorcycle, chainsaw, etc.)

[farmplinker]

OK, I don't doubt the advice given, but I am also confused as to the wording in the code that GunLawyer001 posted. Specifically, the bolded portion of

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce

I'm guessing that all of the interstate commerce language is how the feds justify their involvement. But what do the bolded four words mean (in context) and why are they included. I simply don't understand what "possess in or affecting commerce" means. Wouldn't the law have been much simpler and direct without that phrase?

[tl_3237]

OK, I don't doubt the advice given, but I am also confused as to the wording in the code that GunLawyer001 posted. Specifically, the bolded portion of

I'm guessing that all of the interstate commerce language is how the feds justify their involvement. But what do the bolded four words mean (in context) and why are they included. I simply don't understand what "possess in or affecting commerce" means. Wouldn't the law have been much simpler and direct without that phrase?

Yes - that phraseology is the all-encompassing language replete throughout Federal legislation that justifies(?) significant governmental intrusion in most all aspects of life.

The specific statute under discussion (18 USC 922(g)) bans both firearms and ammunition. As to the meaning of the clause the 2nd Circuit Appellate Court has succinctly interpreted it:

The legislative history of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act confirms what the drafting shows: the intent of Congress was to combine into one section Titles IV and VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.[2] There is no indication that, in passing the Act, Congress was seeking to eliminate the authoritative effect of Scarborough's interpretation of the phrase "affecting commerce," which is retained in the new statute. The House Judiciary Committee Report recites that the new § 922(g) would apply to the possession of a firearm whose only connection to commerce was the previous crossing of a state line. See H.R.Rep. No. 99-495, at 23 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1327, 1349 ("Persons are now unqualified from receiving, possessing or transporting firearms in interstate or foreign commerce or firearms which have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce if they . . . have been . . . convicted of a felony . . . .").

We conclude that in order to satisfy the interstate commerce element of § 922(g), the prosecution need only make the de minimis showing that the possessed firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce

166 F.3d 502 (1999)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Jonathan PALOZIE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1217, Docket 98-1384.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (1999)

And addressed earlier in a twisted SCOTUS decision:

431 U.S. 563 (1977)
SCARBOROUGH
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 75-1344.
Supreme Court of United States

[alpacaheat]

I will say that it sounds a bit fishy that he bought ammo before buying a gun. Just sounds a bit off.

I've had ammo before guns to shoot it before. Probably not an uncommon thing.