The issue being presented in this instance deals with whether or non it was improper for Joe Roberts to possess a machine-gun he built and displayed locally. Mr. Roberts knew it was illegal to purchase a machine-gun so he built his ain gun believing it was legal because it ne’er traveled interstate and he destroyed the cast he used to do the gun.
The federal authorities has the ability to modulate the ownership of a machine-gun that travels interstate. Roberts claims that his apprehension was unconstitutional because he did non go against the jurisprudence. in that. he built the gun utilizing local parts and made and assembled it in Pennsylvania. The gun ne’er left the province of Pennsylvania. Under these fortunes. Roberts could reason that there was no jurisprudence broken. but codified 18 U. S. C. 922 ( O ) makes it illegal for any individual to reassign or possess a machine-gun. The lone exclusions to this legislative act could potentially use to Roberts because in constructing the gun himself locally. he has legitimately possessed the machine-gun. In the legislative act given in this instance. the federal authorities can modulate the ownership of a machine-gun that was entirely made within Pennsylvania and was ne’er portion of interstate commercialism because it is illegal for any individual to possess a machine-gun.
It is non a defence that Joe’s ownership of the machine-gun was undistinguished in the expansive strategy of things because even though he is merely one individual who possesses merely one piece. this could take to other people possessing machine-guns locally with the purpose to utilize the gun to harm others or themselves. The determinations in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich make the ownership of the gun by Mr. Roberts really important in the expansive strategy of things. Regardless of the morality of leting an person to construct guns locally. it is still illegal to construct such a gun for personal usage because it exerts a significant economic consequence of interstate commercialism even if it was non intended to go interstate. The national market for pieces would be well affected if guns could lawfully be produced in one’s place. Based upon Gonzales v. Raich. Joe would be convicted for having a machine-gun that he produced locally because of the impact this would hold on interstate commercialism.