Tommorrow i am bringing a printout of the Stewart v. USA case into my highly experianced law instructor. I read the entire appeals case facts and verdict. For those of you who dont, a convicted felon(stewart) constructed 8 functioning stens or sten type guns from parts kits he had purchased. However, the receiver tube had been created by him, never entering interstate commerce(the way congress banned machine guns). According to congress, there must be an illegal transfer, then illegal possession. Well since he built them himself, there was no illegal transfer and Stewarts conviction was changed from possession of an illegal machine gun, to firearms in the possession of a convicted felon-punishment, 5 years in prison. Also, one of the links on the front page as of now, has a man being charged with the same thing(but not a convicted felon) with nearly the same facts. We'll see how it goes for that guy, and tommorrow i am scheduled to present the case in my law class to discuss it further. I will post what we decide tommorrow afternoon.

I talked to my instructor one on one about this case. He told me that other circuits do not have to agree with the ruling, so if this were to go to court again in another circuit, the oucome could be different(for example,http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/03/12/43494265.shtml?Element_ID=43494265) Also, in US v. Rambo in 1996 also in the 9th circuit, they ruled that there must be illegal transfer then illegal possession will follow. Well in this case there was no illegal transfer as long as he kept them. However, my law instructor explained to me that there are many gray areas in cases like these. EX: Ashcroft made all possession of weed illegal, even if you grow your own and keep it at home, it can still be taken away and then and in short, can come in conflict with the 4th Amendment. This case did not re-legalize machine guns except in the 9th circuit, as of now in the 6th circuit a man in TN is in court for virtually the same scrnario minus the convicted felon part. If ruled this case is ruled in agreement with Stewart v. US, then maybe, maybe this will be the beginning of the end of the infamous MG ban.

Interesting write up.  Thanks.

Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you guys got any questions, just post em and ill try to get them answered

Does anyone know if sound suppressors fit into this same argument?
Thanks

Stewart is the guy behind Maadi rifles who sold .50bmg 80% kits. The last remaining issue which I suspect that his lawyer will go after is that the remaining offense is invalid because his wife could never not possess the firearms due to common property. Thus, they would say that he cannot be held liable for any restrictions not placed on his wife.

[red]I dont know, since you can still legally obtain them and use them at cost. [:\] It is a NFA item, and if it does not enter interstate commerce and is only used and possessed by you, i am no sure. Id just register it. No use risking it if its still legal to register new ones. But if your a felon( im not saying you are) and cant get one and really need one, sure [:E][/red]