User Panel
Posted: 11/13/2003 3:05:45 PM EDT
Here is 922(o)
Here is the decision: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf Here is the quote:
DAMN!!! Am I reading this right? |
||
|
As I read it, we can now build our own HOMEMADE machine guns, or am I wrong?
I can see it know, homemade machine gun kits for $99.95 no FFL needed. Where do I sign up? |
|
Reading some of the NFA stuff some time ago I was wondering how it actually barred possession and creation of "unregistered" NFA weapons if you never crossed state lines. Some of the stuff in it seemed to hint at only effecting stuff you've travelled interstate with under interstate commerce. If you built your own Sten in your garage how is that anything to do with Interstate Commerce?
How does this decision effect anyone in court jurisdiction and outside of it? Is it saying that they cannot ban homemade Class3 weapons that never leave the/a State? I think State law will still screw alot of people. Here in Georgia it has this law:
Would that bar homemade MGs? However, if it's not illegal to build a homemade MG, couldn't you still legally register it at some point them and be gold with Georgia law? I'd love to build a $150 full auto sten and then register it for $200 and be fully legal? |
|
|
Yeah, good question |
|
|
Ouch....
Hot potat... Damned if this won't go to the SCOTUS for sure. And be overturned at that. Ever think that this might be a ploy to get some anti-gun decision from SCOTUS? Damed tinfoil hat, need a new one. |
|
I would think you wouldn't be able to do that because your AR was originally a gun, that was not built in the state you are in and was transferred across state lines while it was a complete firearm. If I'm reading their decision right they are saying that while some parts were from interstate commerce, it was not a gun at any point until he built it in his state... But what about 80% AR receivers and a kit? Are the M16 trigger parts considered NFA items? If so I think you'd have to fab them up too. |
|
|
If 922(o) is invalid, then the ATF must accept NFA tax payments for new machine guns. We'd still have to pay $200/gun, but at least we should be able to get new ones.
Kharn |
|
SCOTUS avoids gun-related cases like the plague. |
|
|
Boy this could be the best news we've had in years, MGs are exempt from all the AWB rules right?
There are several MGs a home person could build pretty easily making a homemade receiver, MAC clones being another off the top of my head. AKs and ARs being a little harder but still doable I would think? We need some ruling from the ATF on this whether they will now accept new registrations on homemade weapons then, if so that is great... |
|
Yeah, but this is commerce related. The 9th didnt rule that the section was unConstitutional because of the 2nd Amendment, but rather that it wasnt within the Commerce Clause. |
||
|
HOMEMADE machineguns would be legal in the Ninth Circuit only (California, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam), and only if this ruling stands. You Probably could NOT build one from a kit, as that would arguably fall in the stream of interstate commerce.
Some states in the Ninth, like California, ban MG possession by state law. Kalifornians are still SOL. |
|
What if you machined M-16 parts and then put together an AR-15 from a parts kit in your house?
LEGAL M-16? Thoughts?? CRC |
|
So in theory, if you made a LL IN your home state with materials from your home state that would be OK, as the BATF considers those parts alone the MG?
|
|
For those of you who don't know, Judge Kozinski is one of the "good guys." This guy gets it.
The following from his dissent earlier this year in the Kaliban AW case:
|
|
|
How long before this applies everywhere? I would assume it is already getting appealed to the Supreme Court. If they refuse to hear it or uphold does it then become the law of the entire land and applicable to all the rest of us poor suckers? Then only state law could hose you right? Also, about your kit comment. In this ruling it directly covers this as Stewart built these from a kit. They mention him fabbing the receiver tube, and it looks like the trigger mechanism. It sounds like they ruled since the reciever is the gun in this country, and since he built that himself the rest of the kit was just legal, non-gun parts. Am I not reading that right? They said he bought a sten kit and built this mostly off that? |
|
|
Oh god, good point. You're right. They wont shy away from it then. |
|||
|
IF this doesnt go to an En Banc hearing, or if an En Banc hearing doesnt reverse it and...
If the SCOTUS doesnt grant Cert to an appeal then 922(o) would stay unConstitutional in the 9th Circuit, and only in the 9th Circuit. Sorta like right now the 2nd Amendment is an 'individual right' in the 5th Circuit, but not in the 9th. IF the SCOTUS grants Cert and hears it, and upholds it, then this would apply nationally (excepting states/counties/cities that have laws against machine guns). And I have a suspcion that Koslowski(sp) wanted to find a way to rule against a gun law, but since the 9th Circuit has precedence of saying that the 2nd is not an 'individual' right he had to go this route. |
|
Sgtar15:
November 13, 2003. Today. The filing date is listed on the first page of the court ruling. Kharn |
|
Of course I am But you dont have to call me god, 'Your Worshipfulness' is more than acceptable. |
||||
|
posting here as I am too tired to try to figure this out now...
|
|
wow, i must be tired, for a scond there i though i heard someone say the 9th circus ruled pro gun on a case.....
i must be gettin really tired.. |
|
Big problem. This would give Feinstein, Shumer, etc. more ammo about "assault weapons" and the right to own Class 3's might be banned. Think of the ammo they would have.
|
|
No, this makes life more difficult for them. Becuase this takes away a major tool for regulating firearms WITHOUT directly attacking the Second Amendment which they know they probably cannot win. Most federal firearms regulation we have today hinges on the federal authority to levy taxes and regulate interstate commerce. |
|
|
Hey, what exactly is this section 922(o)?
Is this not the addition that the 1986 "machinegun freeze" added? This part at the end, talking about lawfully possessed prior to this date seems to be what cuts off new machine gun ownership past 1986. Is it not? The court ruled this doesn't affect homemades. That has to then allow new Registration or homemade MGs doesn't it? If this is upheld does this not overturn the MG Freeze at least for homemade weapons, opening up registration for them again in accordance with the NFA? I want to nail that out because of the aforementioned Georgia law I posted. If this becomes of the law of the land, in Georgia and many other states machineguns have to be NFA registered to be legal. If you can't register your new homemade NFA item this homemade ruling will only be any good for a few states I think that make no mention of MGs being legally registered. The more I look at it the more this 922(o) looks to be what cut off new MGs past 86. If it doesn't effect homemade weapons and we can indeed register with the ATF them that is incredibly awesome. |
|
|
This is what concerns me... Now all of a sudden, soccer Moms will be filled with fear of now legal machineguns. I can see the big headlines already... Machineguns now legal !!! Run for your lives ! |
|
|
Well there is that little cavat about crossing state lines. But yes it seems that, if this is upheld, you could BUILD whatever you want as long as it never crossed state lines as a complete gun and you never sell it across state lines. |
|
|
Well they can be afraid all they want but if its upheld there is nothing they can do about it. Because of the 2nd Amendment, federal firearms regualtion is based on controlling them as a item of merchandise under the commerce clause. If the courts say that is overreaching the commerce clause than there really ISNT anything they can replace it with that can skirt the Second Amendment. |
||
|
Well, this is a shock. I had no idea any cases were even being considered on the '86 ban.
I hope this turns out the way we want, but it means I'll still be broke if I buy machineguns. But, I will have more of them. |
|
It appears the defendant is a Bob Stewart. Sorta sounds like the same Stewart who was raided and carted away for making the Maadi-Griffen .50 BMG kits. (That Bob Stewart is lucky to be alive, IMO, given the BATF's record.)
Does anybody know if this is the same guy? |
|
b SWEET! My brother lives in Georgia. So a 2-6 round burst gun would not require registration and permits under Peach State law. CRC |
||
|
Mmmmmm Gonna get a tri-burst kit for my mothers house who doesnt own an AR.
|
|
Cool. M16A2 would be plenty close enough to FA for me.. |
||
|
Looks to me like it's homemade if no part of it that is already considered a firearm is by itself is sold, or otherwise transferred between people. IE if you build your own receiver/frame, and it's a full auto, it's legal. Right? Now what about parts the ATF considers machineguns by themselves? Like DIASs and M16 fire control groups? Be hard to homemake those but I guess it's doable. If nothing else you could rig it up to be a crude, non-select fire weapon pretty easily, or at least you could with quite a few different guns... What are the current ATF rulings on the 3 shot burst only fire control groups for ARs? Are those considered "firearms" or "Machineguns" by themselve, thus would have to be homemade? I can't think of a easy way to make such an object myself, but a gun like the current M16s that is semi and burst would sure be sweet if that is all we can get in Georgia once/if this becomes the law of the land... Actually, if I'm reading it right all homemade MGs should be registerable so we don't have to worry about burst only mode in Georgia right? (as long as this ruling gets applied to the whole country) |
|
|
So basically the reciever and internal parts would have to be "home made". Everything else wouldn't? CRC |
||
|
Yep, it's all in the first couple of pages of the decision. |
|
|
Arizona here I come, lol. I wouldn't start buying any naughty parts yet. I can't see the Supremes letting this one go by.
Too funny, remember these are the Pledge of Allegiance guys that everyone wanted to string up a few months ago because of their strict interpretation of the Constitution in that case. This is the Maadi-Griffen guy, I didn't remember his name. |
|
I don't know how many of you read to the end, but this isn't all good news. They overturned Mr. Stewart's conviction for possession of homemade MGs but supported his conviction for owning a firearm under disability (he had a previous felony conviction). The last bit is the kicker; in supporting that conviction, they reaffirmed that the 2nd is not an individual right. I would love to see this go to the SCOTUS and have them knock down 922(o), but it will be bad news if they support the ruling on the 2nd, too.
|
|
The way I'm reading yeah, and not even all internal parts in all guns. Only those internal parts that the ATF considers "machineguns" or "firearms" by themselves already, and I don't know what all those are. Doesn't the ATF consider certain internal parts a machinegun already? Like a simple Drop In Auto Sear for a AR? I don't know what they consider a MG in a standard military M16 fire control group, but I seem to recall they consider some parts a MG, or maybe that was only if you owned a semi auto AR15 that they would fit in... Lot of details to iron out here it looks like... Actually, thinking about the drop in auto sear, the ATF has ruled that is the registerable item in a converted AR correct? Could you not according to this just homemake and register your DIAS and then be legal in a non-homemade AR convert? Somebody jump in here and correct me if I'm missing something. |
|
|
Seems to me that a home built receiver and a lightning link (serialized and taxed of course) would be legal. Everything else could then be from whereever?? |
|||
|
Although this judge " seems too get it", and parts are encouraging, I must remind everyone that the 9th District is the most overruled and overturned court within the Federal System.
As one attorney told me, they make Forrest Gump look like Einstein.... |
|
tagged for later. is this for real? where is the catch? -Spaceman |
|
Ooooohhhhh, this is going to get INTERESTING!!!!!! There is a lot of unclear ground in that decision as to how much of the machinegun you would have to manufacture yourself to make it legal. My guess is that BATF is going to take the position that unless ALL the parts in your machinegun were made in your state, if not by you personally, it falls under the 'interstate commerce' clause and they can regulate it. I would think that BATF will now be looking for a test case in the 9th Circuit to determine how much of the gun can be obtained from sources other than the owner to be legal. That means somebody is going to make their own machinegun thinking it's legal, and BATF is going to arrest them for it. It may take a while, but expect it to happen.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.