Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="yukonjack" data-source="post: 708748" data-attributes="member: 2939"><p>Wheat not apples. A commercial farmer who grows a crop for sale on the open market place versus Joe Citizen who grows apples solely for his own consumption are not in the same class of producers. Your reading way to much into this decision. Your trying to take a very small paint brush and paint the whole side of the barn in a single stroke. I'd suggest you go back and reread Wickard.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. <strong>That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where</strong>, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.... </p><p></p><p>If you have a cite for a case of an individual growing apples for personal consumption, or any crop, that suffered some kind of legal sanction as a result of the Wickard decision then please post it. </p><p></p><p>The key here is personal private consumption by an individual that is not and has never been involved in the growing of crops for sale on the open market.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="yukonjack, post: 708748, member: 2939"] Wheat not apples. A commercial farmer who grows a crop for sale on the open market place versus Joe Citizen who grows apples solely for his own consumption are not in the same class of producers. Your reading way to much into this decision. Your trying to take a very small paint brush and paint the whole side of the barn in a single stroke. I'd suggest you go back and reread Wickard. [url]http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html[/url] The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. [B]That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where[/B], as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.... If you have a cite for a case of an individual growing apples for personal consumption, or any crop, that suffered some kind of legal sanction as a result of the Wickard decision then please post it. The key here is personal private consumption by an individual that is not and has never been involved in the growing of crops for sale on the open market. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom