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...)