Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/14/2003 7:47:38 AM EST

Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:06:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/14/2003 8:07:04 AM EST by obershutze916]
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:12:05 AM EST
Thanks Ober!

If we could get the Supreme Court to uphold this decision it would be the law of the land....?And I (I'm not a lawyer), would belive the ATF would have no choice but to accept new registrations of home built machine guns!!!!!

Ohh happy days could be right around the bend....Anyone tell me were that evil third hole goes on my AK?????hehehehehehehehhe

I think I need a bigger rivet gun!!!
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:13:52 AM EST

Great post !!!!

Who knows, maybe they will open it back up to building and registering machineguns by private individuals!

Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:30:02 AM EST
Im sure none of us will mind paying the $200 tax just to be able to build one at home and keep it there legally.

Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:33:44 AM EST
I just checked my calendar and it is not April 1st, so what's the deal? The ninth circuit made a pro-gun ruling??

Okay I need to wake up now.

Link Posted: 11/14/2003 8:39:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 10:11:03 AM EST
Sorry to make your head hurt there Campy, I'm sure you probably don't need help though...

But here is something else to make your head hurt....

The Constitution guarantees us the same rights as those living in the 9th district.....

U.S. Constitution

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Link Posted: 11/14/2003 12:58:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/14/2003 1:00:16 PM EST by kythri]
Eh, this isn't really a "win" for anybody but the guy in the case.

As he was a felon, he was not legally allowed to purchase or possess firearms.

Therefore, his manufacture of the machinegun did not affect interstate commerce, as regulated under 922(o).

In my interpretation of this, here's the key section:

Similarly, by crafting his own guns and working out of his own home, Stewart functioned outside the commercial gun market. His activities obviously did not increase machinegun demand. Nor can we say that Stewart’s homemade machineguns reduced overall demand. Unlike wheat, for example, which is a staple commodity that Filburn would probably have had to buy, had he not grown it himself, there is no reason to think Stewart would ever have bought a machinegun from a commercial source, had he been precluded by law from building one himself.(3) In fact, the evidence
suggests that Stewart was cognizant of the law and made careful efforts not to come into conflict with it.(4) Thus, the link between Stewart’s activity and its effect on interstate commerce is simply too tenuous to justify federal regulation.

And this footnote:

(3) As a convicted felon, Stewart would have been highly unlikely to obtain a federal license authorizing him to purchase a machinegun in the heavily regulated market for such commodities. See 18 U.S.C. § 923 (describing the licensing requirements for firearms).

Basically - all of us law-abiding citizens, for whom purchase, transfer and possession of a machinegun would be perfectly legal, pursuant to proper registration and tax payment, aren't necessarily affected by this decision.

Our home-manufacture of a machinegun would affect interstate commerce, as we wouldn't be buying a machinegun from someone else, and those monies then wouldn't be in circulation in interstate commerce.

The only way our home manufacture would be legal would be to prove that we wouldn't have bought a machinegun anyways, even though we were legally able to.

Stewart wasn't allowed (due to his prior felony conviction) to purchase a machinegun, therefore he was not able to affect interstate commerce by building one.

Any of this make sense?

I know can get pretty confusing, but this one seems somewhat straightforward. All in all, it really doesn't sound like too much of a "win" for those of us who'd like to build or possess a machinegun.

(Edited for formatting - stupid 9th Circuit PDF...)
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 1:04:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/14/2003 1:06:02 PM EST by kythri]
Oh yeah, almost forgot - here's the other clincher in this:

"We therefore conclude that section 922(o) is unconstitutional as applied to Stewart."

The bold is mine.

So, if you were thinking about building a machinegun tonight, chill for a little while, and don't get your ass in trouble.

Did you really think the 9th Circuit was going to make a blanket decision on 922(o)?

(Edited again for formatting.)
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 1:23:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 1:44:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB:
as applied to stewart, the individual, or to stewart, the legal precedant? first time i read thru that i thought it applied to case law.

Good question - I'd assume that it applies to the individual, since it's not case law or a precedent until the decision is made/released...

no matter what happens, i'll bet you a beer nothing gets overturned about the nfa of '34 or usc 18.

That's a bet I'm not going to take!
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 1:52:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/14/2003 1:53:33 PM EST by rickinvegas]
Thinking out loud................

I wonder if any of this opinion/decision could be used as "ammunition" (pun intended) to challenge present laws/regulations.

Now I am not stupid enough to drop a link in my AR or drill my AK for the autosear BUT.....

Has anyone noticed that the Form 1's still have a box to check for "Machine gun"? I think someone should submit a form 1 to build a machine gun and then challenge the inevitable denial in court using the 9th circut case law.


Link Posted: 11/14/2003 3:08:03 PM EST
It would apply only to the person named. The rest of us don't count.

Besides, how long do you think this will stand on appeal?
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 3:51:40 PM EST
I have to read the decision, but based on the sections quoted I offer this up as food for thought. Would those living in non-Class 3 states enjoy the same protection as Stewart as we can not participate in the interstate commerce of NFA weapons?

I'll just save my class 3 time for when I attend Gunstock and/or Bulletfest where I can do it legally.
Link Posted: 11/14/2003 4:39:30 PM EST
Ober: It'll stand as it is until such time as the Supreme Court decides to hear it. Ain't nobody higher than the 9th Circuit but the SC.

Even though it's a meaningless victory to anybody but Stewart (or other felons who build machineguns), I still can't help but be shocked and awed that the 9th Circuit made this decision...
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 3:42:49 AM EST
Your right, I missed the Appeals Court part at the top.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:22:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
I have to read the decision, but based on the sections quoted I offer this up as food for thought. Would those living in non-Class 3 states enjoy the same protection as Stewart as we can not participate in the interstate commerce of NFA weapons?

Hiram, that depends. How do your state laws read?

If a state law prohibits you from possession or transfer, then, per the precedent established in this case, you aren't affecting interstate commerce by building your own.

Basically, if you can prove that your possession, transfer or manufacture does not affect interstate commerce, you're in the clear.

You've still got state law to worry about.

I'll just save my class 3 time for when I attend Gunstock and/or Bulletfest where I can do it legally.

An incredibly sane idea! I don't doubt that the next wanna-be crime-bill will have something tacked onto it to prevent machineguns, since this case has declared 922(o) to be a law regulating commerce.

Hell, with our screwed-ass legal system, I doubt they'd even have to tack it into a crime-bill.
Top Top