UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
ROCK ISLAND ARMORY, INC., and David R. Reese, Defendants.
No. 90-40025. United States District Court,
C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division.
June 7, 1991.
Here's the money quote:
In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED.
This decision struck down the 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun control acts, and the loss was not appealed by FedGov.
Here's the whole thing:
U.S. v. RIA.And then there is
U.S. v. Dalton as well. It is quite similar.
Here's the money quote there:
The government is correct that a statute is repealed by implication only when that statute and a later statute are irreconcilable. See, e.g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 533, 549-51 (1974). In our view, however, that is exactly the situation here. Sections 5861(d) and (e) punish the failure to register a machinegun at the same time that the government refuses to accept this required registration due to the ban imposed by section 922(o). As a result of section 922(o), compliance with section 5861 is impossible.
Accordingly, we vacate Dalton's conviction and reverse with instructions to dismiss the indictment. In so doing, we recognize that the illegal possession of a machinegun is a most serious matter. However, it is precisely because this conduct raises such grave concerns that the government must exercise its prosecuting responsibility with care. The decision to proceed under an inapplicable statute has resulted in a constitutionally infirm conviction.
We've talked about all these cases before. What we need is a clean case that can put this issue to rest once and for all. "Shall not be infringed" shouldn't be this convoluted.