Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/10/2006 10:37:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 10:49:19 AM EDT by TacticalStrat]

Link to thread

It appears from this thread on FAL Files that there was a 9th circuit court decision which forced the BATF to approve a Form 1 that allowed you to manufacture a machinegun for your own personal use.

The Ninth Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits and includes all federal courts in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Check out the thread, it's quite interesting.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:39:00 AM EDT
Tag.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:42:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 10:43:20 AM EDT by roboman]
Stewart v. US was about homemade machine guns and interstate commerce regulation.

The 9th ruled that it was illegal to try to control interstate commerce on homemade machine guns.

People tried filling out Form 1s and sending them to the Feds on Stewart grounds, but were rejected by the ATF.

More recently, when the SCOTUS ruled on a case in California about controlling and regulating the growth of marijuana in someone's home (for medicinal use I believe) they also sent the Stewart ruling back to the 9th, effectively saying" "try again".

I believe it's a dead issue. No new homemade MGs. The guy supposedly getting his Form 1 approved I hadn't heard about, though that was first posted back in 2004.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:47:40 AM EDT
The thread says that that form was approved in the 10th circuit.

I don't know why these guys are so upset about the possible requirement that the machinegun be homemade. After all, a lightning link is probably pretty easy to make.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:47:47 AM EDT
That thread was also start in june 2004, just a wee bit old.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:50:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By joker581:
The thread says that that form was approved in the 10th circuit.

I don't know why these guys are so upset about the possible requirement that the machinegun be homemade. After all, a lightning link is probably pretty easy to make.



I'd assume it's damn easy, cause there was a guy on EBAY a few years back selling stencil sheets that you'd put over a bandsaw blade and cut the LL out of it.

Needless to say, he and his auctions certainly didn't last very long
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:52:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 11:01:40 AM EDT by _DR]
So has anyone actually got a form 1 to make their own MG approved?

ETA read the thread, the BATFE made the guy give the parts to them, revoked the form 1, said it was all a "mistake" and he could sue if he wanted.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:54:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:
So has anyone actually got a form 1 to make their own MG approved?



As far as I know, no one has. Rumors have floated around, but I have yet to see anyone bragging about an approved Form 1.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:55:19 AM EDT
The majority of that thread is from 2004. I would like to hear the outcome of the guy who submitted 10 forms and only had 5 rejected. What became of the other 5?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:57:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 11:00:08 AM EDT by TacticalStrat]

Originally Posted By _DR:
So has anyone actually got a form 1 to make their own MG approved?




This post is in the thread on FAL Files:



"I got a call from ATF last night. My form 1 that was approved on May 19 was a mistake and they want the parts I built for my AK. I will meet with them Tuesday of next week in the afternoon. The agent I got the call from was very nice, other than the fact he wants my pieces parts. He said I can try and fight it in court and that he would not destroy my parts until I have exhausted all avenues of tring to win them back. After that time he would either give them back to me (if I win) or destroy them. We talked about me being able to recoup my dollars that I invested in time and parts since I was given the go ahead from them to build it, he did not have any answers but seemed optimistic since it was their mistake. When I meet with him next week he will give me a packet of information (along with a writen apology) and a phone number to call for answers to my question. He said in all his years with ATF this is the first time he has ever had to make a call like that one. Usually he is picking up illegal parts kits or felons but never an approved transfer machine gun. He did tell me that the form was approved before they realized I did not live in the 9th circut district. Since I am in the tenth they decided to retract the approval. That tells me you guys out in the 9th MAY have a chance. Anyone think there is a snowballs chance of winning if I take them to court? What other avenues could I explore? Later, it was fun while it lasted!!!!"
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:02:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 11:05:33 AM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By TacticalStrat:

Originally Posted By _DR:
So has anyone actually got a form 1 to make their own MG approved?




This post is in the thread on FAL Files:



"I got a call from ATF last night. My form 1 that was approved on May 19 was a mistake and they want the parts I built for my AK. I will meet with them Tuesday of next week in the afternoon. The agent I got the call from was very nice, other than the fact he wants my pieces parts. He said I can try and fight it in court and that he would not destroy my parts until I have exhausted all avenues of tring to win them back. After that time he would either give them back to me (if I win) or destroy them. We talked about me being able to recoup my dollars that I invested in time and parts since I was given the go ahead from them to build it, he did not have any answers but seemed optimistic since it was their mistake. When I meet with him next week he will give me a packet of information (along with a writen apology) and a phone number to call for answers to my question. He said in all his years with ATF this is the first time he has ever had to make a call like that one. Usually he is picking up illegal parts kits or felons but never an approved transfer machine gun. He did tell me that the form was approved before they realized I did not live in the 9th circut district. Since I am in the tenth they decided to retract the approval. That tells me you guys out in the 9th MAY have a chance. Anyone think there is a snowballs chance of winning if I take them to court? What other avenues could I explore? Later, it was fun while it lasted!!!!"




Yep just read that.

BATFE really is interpreting the law to mean whatever they want. That is just wrong.

The 9th circuit ruling should apply to all states that allow FA, not just the ninth circuit states They are applying a different law based on what? What they can get away with?

I hope he does litigate.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:07:16 AM EDT
.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:09:01 AM EDT
GAT (ratatatat)
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:15:16 AM EDT
Wasn't U.S. vrs Rock Island in the 10th circuit?

That decision IIRC stated that by refusing to collect the excise tax, ATF was in effect making the tax no longer required. or some such... Look it up.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:17:34 AM EDT
hold a raffle to raise money to get a lawyer? anyone?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:21:52 AM EDT
Somebody with standing that followed the rules and isn't a dirt bag. Somebody tell the NRA/GOA.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:43:20 AM EDT
I live in the 9th now. I'm thinking about filing a form 1. Maybe several. LL, RDIAS, RR, AK....
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 12:10:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rtech:
I live in the 9th now. I'm thinking about filing a form 1. Maybe several. LL, RDIAS, RR, AK....




Here's the instructions. Let us know how it goes:


Here are the step-by-step Stewart Form1 instructions once again:
Form1 app:
1.a. "Tax Paid"
2. "Individual"
3.a. "N/A"
3.b. Put your full name & address
3.c. Put "N/A" if street address and mailing address same.
3.d. Put your county of residence
3.e. Put your telephone# with area code
4.a. Put your full name & address
4.b. Put type of firearm such as "submachinegun" or "machinegun"
4.c. Put caliber of weapon such as ".223" or ".9MM" You can put several down.
4.d. Make up a model name. You can use a descriptive reference such as "HKSEAR".
4.e. If registering a sear put "N/A"; If registering a receiver, put barrel length on weapon.
4.f. If registering a sear put "N/A"; If registering a receiver, put overall length of weapon.
4.g. Make up a serial number.
4.h. "N/A"
4.i. Put down reason for making the firearm. I used "COLLECTION & ENTERTAINMENT"
5. "N/A" Assuming you're an individual applying.
6.a. "N/A"
6.b. "N/A"
7.a-f I answered all "NO" to the questions. YMMV
8.a-e I answered all "NO" to the questions. YMMV
9. sign your name
10. "N/A" Assuming you're an individual applying.
11. Put down date signed.
12. Attach a 2"X 2" passport type photo.
13. Put your full name.
I also put the name of the CLEO's dpt.--for instance "XXXXX" County Sheriff's Department 123 Smith St. Smalltown, USA etc in the appropriate blanks so that all the Sheriff had to do was sign his name and date it.
Also, you will have to fill out in duplicate and the CLEO sign both copies for each application, and send with two fingerprint cards for the whole package and include a "Certification Of Compliance With 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B)"
Cut a separate check for $200.00 for each firearm applied for and place the proposed serial number in the "For" blank of each $200.00 check.
I also included a cover letter indicating the Stewart ruling and a copy of the actual case.
I am in the 7th district so applied under the 'uniform code' and indicated such in the aforementioned letter. Any future class action if needed should cover all states under the uniform code.
The "form 1" and "Certification Of Compliance With 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B)" are available at http:\\www.titleii.com
The FBI FD-258 fingerprint cards can be ordered on-line at: http://www.atf.gov/dcof/index.htm
Here's a copy of my cover letter. I x'd out private info and my prospective MG model#'s

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
National Firearms Act Branch
650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20226

November, 20 2003

Dear Sir or Madam:
Please find the enclosed applications to manufacture 5 NFA machineguns under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The two machinegun sears (models ‘XXXXX' and ‘XXXXX’) and the three machinegun receivers (models ‘XXXX xx’, ‘XXXXX xx’ and 'XXXXX') will be built in accordance with materials appropriate for "new manufactured" weapons under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
These 5 NFA machineguns will not be for sale and are solely for my personal use in a non-profit-generating capacity.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1 provides that The Congress shall have Power
"To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" and further, per the Ninth Circuit opinion dated 11/13/2003, 922(o) is unconstitutional as applied to self made firearms that will not move in interstate commerce but Federal authority to tax such items was not affected by such ruling so that filing of this tax return is still compelled and ATFE is compelled by the National Firearms Act of 1934 to accept my enclosed payment of that tax.

Thank You,

XXXXX XXX XXXXXX
http://www.full-auto.com/ubb/ultima...=4;t=000293;p=1

Edit: I am considering using a corporation for successive form1 applications so as not to keep pestering my CLEO for signatures each time a rejection comes through and I resubmit.
It seems it is a bit of a lottery with a few actually getting approved outside the 9th District, so maybe I'll hit the powerball next time and come away with a sear or sideplate?!?
The eventual end-game may be a class-action type movement with all the rejected applicants seeking redress together.

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 12:10:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 12:12:06 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By rtech:
I live in the 9th now. I'm thinking about filing a form 1. Maybe several. LL, RDIAS, RR, AK....



What do you have to lose? they have to refund your $200 if it is denied. Of course if they lose it....

I would do it if I lived there.


I would guess because of the interstate commerce issues a corp form 1 would be out?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 12:17:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By rtech:
I live in the 9th now. I'm thinking about filing a form 1. Maybe several. LL, RDIAS, RR, AK....



What do you have to lose? they have to refund your $200 if it is denied. Of course if they lose it....

I would do it if I lived there.


I would guess because of the interstate commerce issues a corp form 1 would be out?



I HAVE A VERY HARD TIME BELIEVING THE ACTIVISTS LIBERALS ON THE 9TH WILL OVERTURN THE BAN.
Also it is likely the USSC will strike it down. Scalia comes down against on these issues and even if he did we are likely one short of the needed five.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 12:37:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By rtech:
I live in the 9th now. I'm thinking about filing a form 1. Maybe several. LL, RDIAS, RR, AK....



What do you have to lose? they have to refund your $200 if it is denied. Of course if they lose it....

I would do it if I lived there.


I would guess because of the interstate commerce issues a corp form 1 would be out?



I HAVE A VERY HARD TIME BELIEVING THE ACTIVISTS LIBERALS ON THE 9TH WILL OVERTURN THE BAN.
Also it is likely the USSC will strike it down. Scalia comes down against on these issues and even if he did we are likely one short of the needed five.



Yeah but isn't Alito in the Mix now?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 2:08:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By rtech:
I live in the 9th now. I'm thinking about filing a form 1. Maybe several. LL, RDIAS, RR, AK....



What do you have to lose? they have to refund your $200 if it is denied. Of course if they lose it....

I would do it if I lived there.


I would guess because of the interstate commerce issues a corp form 1 would be out?



I HAVE A VERY HARD TIME BELIEVING THE ACTIVISTS LIBERALS ON THE 9TH WILL OVERTURN THE BAN.
Also it is likely the USSC will strike it down. Scalia comes down against on these issues and even if he did we are likely one short of the needed five.



Yeah but isn't Alito in the Mix now?




Alito argued in court that the ban on machineguns because interstate commence statutes, was not just. He explained it in his SCOUS hearings when the Dems tried to nail him for trying to legalize machineguns. He explained that he wasn't arguing that machineguns should be legalized, but that the interstate commerce statues have zero relevance to support why machineguns should be outlawed.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 2:13:44 PM EDT
Why do you even have to fill out a Form 1?

Isn't the power to enforce the 34NFA under the Commerce Clause?

If they cant ban Machine guns how can they even regulate it?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 3:21:58 PM EDT
Tagarelo
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 3:29:16 PM EDT
ooo ooo my first TAG
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 3:38:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:
Why do you even have to fill out a Form 1?

Isn't the power to enforce the 34NFA under the Commerce Clause?

If they cant ban Machine guns how can they even regulate it?



Regulated through taxation. But then they banned civilian machine guns, so the tax is just for
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 3:47:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By roboman:
Stewart v. US was about homemade machine guns and interstate commerce regulation.

The 9th ruled that it was illegal to try to control interstate commerce on homemade machine guns.

People tried filling out Form 1s and sending them to the Feds on Stewart grounds, but were rejected by the ATF.

More recently, when the SCOTUS ruled on a case in California about controlling and regulating the growth of marijuana in someone's home (for medicinal use I believe) they also sent the Stewart ruling back to the 9th, effectively saying" "try again".

I believe it's a dead issue. No new homemade MGs. The guy supposedly getting his Form 1 approved I hadn't heard about, though that was first posted back in 2004.


Correct.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 4:00:37 PM EDT
Oh jeez, I cant believe this is back.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:43:52 PM EDT
Before you get all hot up about this, especially if you don't live in the 9th Circus, maybe you better study up on what happens when different Circuits disagree on rulings or make new rulings on cases.

In other words, if there is a conflict, until the SCOTUS rules or another Circuit agrees to use it as precedent, a Circuit ruling applies ONLY to that Circuit.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:06:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 11:07:54 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Before you get all hot up about this, especially if you don't live in the 9th Circus, maybe you better study up on what happens when different Circuits disagree on rulings or make new rulings on cases.

In other words, if there is a conflict, until the SCOTUS rules or another Circuit agrees to use it as precedent, a Circuit ruling applies ONLY to that Circuit.



So you essentially have a different rule of federal law in different areas of the country. Our justice system leaves a lot to be desired.

Justice and equality for all...unless you live in the wrong place. Nice.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:19:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By TacticalStrat:

Originally Posted By _DR:
So has anyone actually got a form 1 to make their own MG approved?




This post is in the thread on FAL Files:



"I got a call from ATF last night. My form 1 that was approved on May 19 was a mistake and they want the parts I built for my AK. I will meet with them Tuesday of next week in the afternoon. The agent I got the call from was very nice, other than the fact he wants my pieces parts. He said I can try and fight it in court and that he would not destroy my parts until I have exhausted all avenues of tring to win them back. After that time he would either give them back to me (if I win) or destroy them. We talked about me being able to recoup my dollars that I invested in time and parts since I was given the go ahead from them to build it, he did not have any answers but seemed optimistic since it was their mistake. When I meet with him next week he will give me a packet of information (along with a writen apology) and a phone number to call for answers to my question. He said in all his years with ATF this is the first time he has ever had to make a call like that one. Usually he is picking up illegal parts kits or felons but never an approved transfer machine gun. He did tell me that the form was approved before they realized I did not live in the 9th circut district. Since I am in the tenth they decided to retract the approval. That tells me you guys out in the 9th MAY have a chance. Anyone think there is a snowballs chance of winning if I take them to court? What other avenues could I explore? Later, it was fun while it lasted!!!!"




Yep just read that.

BATFE really is interpreting the law to mean whatever they want. That is just wrong.

The 9th circuit ruling should apply to all states that allow FA, not just the ninth circuit states They are applying a different law based on what? What they can get away with?
I hope he does litigate.



Sorry it dosen't work like that. It is not uncommon for different appelate courts to contradict one another. What the 9th circut says only goes for its own jurisdiction.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:36:57 PM EDT
For those who aren't aware, the USSC kicked Stewart back to the 9th and told them to re-do the decision in light of US v. Raich.

Nobody is going to get an approved Form 1 out of the deal.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:38:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 11:41:03 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By Ardenner:

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By TacticalStrat:

Originally Posted By _DR:
So has anyone actually got a form 1 to make their own MG approved?




This post is in the thread on FAL Files:



"I got a call from ATF last night. My form 1 that was approved on May 19 was a mistake and they want the parts I built for my AK. I will meet with them Tuesday of next week in the afternoon. The agent I got the call from was very nice, other than the fact he wants my pieces parts. He said I can try and fight it in court and that he would not destroy my parts until I have exhausted all avenues of tring to win them back. After that time he would either give them back to me (if I win) or destroy them. We talked about me being able to recoup my dollars that I invested in time and parts since I was given the go ahead from them to build it, he did not have any answers but seemed optimistic since it was their mistake. When I meet with him next week he will give me a packet of information (along with a writen apology) and a phone number to call for answers to my question. He said in all his years with ATF this is the first time he has ever had to make a call like that one. Usually he is picking up illegal parts kits or felons but never an approved transfer machine gun. He did tell me that the form was approved before they realized I did not live in the 9th circut district. Since I am in the tenth they decided to retract the approval. That tells me you guys out in the 9th MAY have a chance. Anyone think there is a snowballs chance of winning if I take them to court? What other avenues could I explore? Later, it was fun while it lasted!!!!"




Yep just read that.

BATFE really is interpreting the law to mean whatever they want. That is just wrong.

The 9th circuit ruling should apply to all states that allow FA, not just the ninth circuit states They are applying a different law based on what? What they can get away with?
I hope he does litigate.



Sorry it dosen't work like that. It is not uncommon for different appelate courts to contradict one another. What the 9th circut says only goes for its own jurisdiction.



Again, that just proves how screwed up our justice system is if the courts can't agree on one interpretation of federal law for everyone.

I don't care if that is "accepted", it's still wrong. Federal law should be uniformly enforced, not interpreted one way by one court and enforced differently by another. This has gotten way out of hand.

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 11:41:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 11:42:42 PM EDT by rara1141]

Originally Posted By STG77:
For those who aren't aware, the USSC kicked Stewart back to the 9th and told them to re-do the decision in light of US v. Raich.

Nobody is going to get an approved Form 1 out of the deal.



Different Supreme Court now... Let's run these cases through now and see what happens this time... No longer tilted "that" way ...
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 12:04:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rara1141:

Originally Posted By STG77:
For those who aren't aware, the USSC kicked Stewart back to the 9th and told them to re-do the decision in light of US v. Raich.

Nobody is going to get an approved Form 1 out of the deal.



Different Supreme Court now... Let's run these cases through now and see what happens this time... No longer tilted "that" way ...




Actually, the court isn't any different. All five of the justices traitors from the Kelo vs. New London decision are still on the court.

Who's going to vote our way? Kennedy? Souter?

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 12:55:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By STG77:

Originally Posted By rara1141:

Originally Posted By STG77:
For those who aren't aware, the USSC kicked Stewart back to the 9th and told them to re-do the decision in light of US v. Raich.

Nobody is going to get an approved Form 1 out of the deal.



Different Supreme Court now... Let's run these cases through now and see what happens this time... No longer tilted "that" way ...




Actually, the court isn't any different. All five of the justices traitors from the Kelo vs. New London decision are still on the court.

Who's going to vote our way? Kennedy? Souter?

i1.tinypic.com/nlo8z6.jpg



tug-of-war then... PULL!!!
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:05:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 5:06:40 AM EDT by Phil_A_Steen]

Originally Posted By STG77:

Actually, the court isn't any different. All five six of the justices traitors from the Kelo vs. New London ETA: Raich decision are still on the court.





Fixed it for you.

For those who thinks Roberts and Alito will make a difference, they won't. O'Connor and Rehnquist, who Alito and Roberts replaced, both voted against Raich last time around. So there's no change in the composition of the court with respect to this case.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:06:51 AM EDT
Tag
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:33:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Before you get all hot up about this, especially if you don't live in the 9th Circus, maybe you better study up on what happens when different Circuits disagree on rulings or make new rulings on cases.

In other words, if there is a conflict, until the SCOTUS rules or another Circuit agrees to use it as precedent, a Circuit ruling applies ONLY to that Circuit.



So you essentially have a different rule of federal law in different areas of the country. Why, YES, what an interesting conclusion to draw from my post. Our justice system leaves a lot to be desired. So you have a better idea of what country has a better one, pray elucidate us sir?

Justice and equality for all...unless you live in the wrong place. Nice.



Let me guess you slept through civics all through High School didn't you? but don't let it bother you, most of the guys around here have no clue on how the Federal courts and State Courts of Appeal work either. I guess you never wondered about why all the states have different laws for just about everything?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:38:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 12:40:35 AM EDT by STG77]

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By STG77:

Actually, the court isn't any different. All five six of the justices traitors from the Kelo vs. New London decision are still on the court.





Fixed it for you.




Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas dissented on Kelo.

That's four, unless I counted wrong.

ETA - were you thinking of Raich? Scalia went the other way on that one.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 5:06:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By STG77:

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By STG77:

Actually, the court isn't any different. All five six of the justices traitors from the Kelo vs. New London decision are still on the court.





Fixed it for you.




Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas dissented on Kelo.

That's four, unless I counted wrong.

ETA - were you thinking of Raich? Scalia went the other way on that one.



Sorry, I meant to refix that -- I meant to replace Kelo with Raich. Raich is the controlling decision on this one. Much closer to the Stewart facts than Kelo.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 5:49:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 7:47:09 AM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Before you get all hot up about this, especially if you don't live in the 9th Circus, maybe you better study up on what happens when different Circuits disagree on rulings or make new rulings on cases.

In other words, if there is a conflict, until the SCOTUS rules or another Circuit agrees to use it as precedent, a Circuit ruling applies ONLY to that Circuit.



So you essentially have a different rule of federal law in different areas of the country. Why, YES, what an interesting conclusion to draw from my post. Our justice system leaves a lot to be desired. So you have a better idea of what country has a better one, pray elucidate us sir?

Justice and equality for all...unless you live in the wrong place. Nice.



Let me guess you slept through civics all through High School didn't you? but don't let it bother you, most of the guys around here have no clue on how the Federal courts and State Courts of Appeal work either. I guess you never wondered about why all the states have different laws for just about everything?



Actually I did not go to high school in the US, I was in Canada during my high school years. I am afraid because of that I can tell you more about the Canadian legal system and the constitutional monarchy than our system, to my deficit. While I appreciate you pointing out the finer points of the US judicial system and agree it allows self determination, I still don't agree that it allows equitable application of Federal and constitutional law. I think firearms laws are an excellent example of what I am talking about. Any time your constitutional rights are directly affected by your geographical location within the United States, you have a judicial system that really makes some Americans more equal than others.

Although Canada does have much more restrictive gun laws, I can say that they apply the same to EVERY citizen, no matter where they live in the nation. I prefer an equal application of the law, whatever it may be. We are not always getting that here, and this issue is a prime example.

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 6:07:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 6:10:41 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By ProfGAB101:
Wasn't U.S. vrs Rock Island in the 10th circuit?

That decision IIRC stated that by refusing to collect the excise tax, ATF was in effect making the tax no longer required. or some such... Look it up.



To oversimplified. What they said(it was in the 7th circuit IIRC) was that two parts of the tax code(the NFA is a tax law) were unconstitutional as long as the government refused to accept the tax payment and registration of the firearm becuase it was by that refusal to register and tax no longer a revenue generating measure so any prosecutions under those two sections of the NFA could no longer be done because the law in those two aspects was no longer valid.

But it really doesn't matter becuase 922(o) takes care of all that by making MGs illegal to posses or make for us lil people. If you got rid of 922(o) those two parts of the NFA law would only remain unconstitutional as long as the government refused the tax payment and registration of the firearm all they have to do is accept them and then those aspects of the NFA are once again valid as "revenue generating" measures.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:02:22 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:16:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Before you get all hot up about this, especially if you don't live in the 9th Circus, maybe you better study up on what happens when different Circuits disagree on rulings or make new rulings on cases.

In other words, if there is a conflict, until the SCOTUS rules or another Circuit agrees to use it as precedent, a Circuit ruling applies ONLY to that Circuit.



So you essentially have a different rule of federal law in different areas of the country. Why, YES, what an interesting conclusion to draw from my post. Our justice system leaves a lot to be desired. So you have a better idea of what country has a better one, pray elucidate us sir?

Justice and equality for all...unless you live in the wrong place. Nice.



Let me guess you slept through civics all through High School didn't you? but don't let it bother you, most of the guys around here have no clue on how the Federal courts and State Courts of Appeal work either. I guess you never wondered about why all the states have different laws for just about everything?



Actually I did not go to high school in the US, I was in Canada during my high school years. I am afraid because of that I can tell you more about the Canadian legal system and the constitutional monarchy than our system, to my deficit. While I appreciate you pointing out the finer points of the US judicial system and agree it allows self determination, I still don't agree that it allows equitable application of Federal and constitutional law. I think firearms laws are an excellent example of what I am talking about. Any time your constitutional rights are directly affected by your geographical location within the United States, you have a judicial system that really makes some Americans more equal than others.

Although Canada does have much more restrictive gun laws, I can say that they apply the same to EVERY citizen, no matter where they live in the nation. I prefer an equal application of the law, whatever it may be. We are not always getting that here, and this issue is a prime example.




It is a good thing that this can happen. Checks and balances. Without any conflict in the lower courts, why have a supreme one? Besides, if the whole country is taking a dump towards facism, wouldn't it be nice to have one circuit shutting it down for at least some of us? Think of the lower court as a judicial house of representatives.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 10:03:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BustinCaps:

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Before you get all hot up about this, especially if you don't live in the 9th Circus, maybe you better study up on what happens when different Circuits disagree on rulings or make new rulings on cases.

In other words, if there is a conflict, until the SCOTUS rules or another Circuit agrees to use it as precedent, a Circuit ruling applies ONLY to that Circuit.



So you essentially have a different rule of federal law in different areas of the country. Why, YES, what an interesting conclusion to draw from my post. Our justice system leaves a lot to be desired. So you have a better idea of what country has a better one, pray elucidate us sir?

Justice and equality for all...unless you live in the wrong place. Nice.



Let me guess you slept through civics all through High School didn't you? but don't let it bother you, most of the guys around here have no clue on how the Federal courts and State Courts of Appeal work either. I guess you never wondered about why all the states have different laws for just about everything?



Actually I did not go to high school in the US, I was in Canada during my high school years. I am afraid because of that I can tell you more about the Canadian legal system and the constitutional monarchy than our system, to my deficit. While I appreciate you pointing out the finer points of the US judicial system and agree it allows self determination, I still don't agree that it allows equitable application of Federal and constitutional law. I think firearms laws are an excellent example of what I am talking about. Any time your constitutional rights are directly affected by your geographical location within the United States, you have a judicial system that really makes some Americans more equal than others.

Although Canada does have much more restrictive gun laws, I can say that they apply the same to EVERY citizen, no matter where they live in the nation. I prefer an equal application of the law, whatever it may be. We are not always getting that here, and this issue is a prime example.




It is a good thing that this can happen. Checks and balances. Without any conflict in the lower courts, why have a supreme one? Besides, if the whole country is taking a dump towards facism, wouldn't it be nice to have one circuit shutting it down for at least some of us? Think of the lower court as a judicial house of representatives.



I suppose so. it just sucks if you live in the wrong place.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 10:10:18 AM EDT
Is it me, or does it also look like the ATF is approving Form 1's for people that live in the 9th?
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 10:14:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Drakich:
Is it me, or does it also look like the ATF is approving Form 1's for people that live in the 9th?



it's just you, they're not approving form 1s.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 10:18:46 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 4:32:52 PM EDT
I live in the ninth circuit.

Now all I need is a machine shop, and a lawyer who's willing to do some pro-gun, pro-bono work...
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:59:48 PM EDT
Although Canada does have much more restrictive gun laws, I can say that they apply the same to EVERY citizen, no matter where they live in the nation. I prefer an equal application of the law, whatever it may be. We are not always getting that here, and this issue is a prime example.


ummm registered gun owners need to report change of address and felons don't? BTW don't "aboriginal persons" have different firearms restricitions and laws? And aren't Indians or Aborigines treated different in many ways? (although not to the extent as in the past)?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top