Gunco Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
President for Life Field Marshall Doctor Bluedog D
Joined
·
1,604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here is the Stewart case for those who wish to read it and talk about it.

Stewart Case
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Don't forget that even without the Feds there is a CCW-like patchwork of incoherent and hard-to-understand state laws too. Here in VA machine guns must be registered per VA Code 18.2-295, though it looks like machine-gun registration is shall-issue :)
 

·
President for Life Field Marshall Doctor Bluedog D
Joined
·
1,604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Given the anti-gun stance of the 9th cir, I can't help but suspect thay are trying to force a showdown.
 

·
President for Life Field Marshall Doctor Bluedog D
Joined
·
1,604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
fansipans said:
Don't forget that even without the Feds there is a CCW-like patchwork of incoherent and hard-to-understand state laws too. Here in VA machine guns must be registered per VA Code 18.2-295, though it looks like machine-gun registration is shall-issue :)
Machine guns are illegal in Michigan, so this has no effect on me even if it holds up.
 

·
Code name: Felix
Joined
·
6,361 Posts
Verry interresting...in Florida it is legal as long as you comply with federal law. I'll keep a close watch on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
It's my understanding that the holding of Stewart says the feds cannot regulate a completely home-built machine gun using the Commerce clause. Look at where the NFA is located. 26 USC is based on the taxing power of the feds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Well , technically I suppose that is true , but the ATF's stance has been , in the past , that if the steel , wood , plastic , or raw materials used to construct the firearm E-V-E-R traveled in interstate commerce , the they have control over it.

That legal concept is changing , due to the States Rights / Federal Rights arguement over marijuana.

The 9th's decision concludes , in part , that even though the STEN parts kits that Mr. Stewart assembled had traveled in interstate commerce , the parts he used to complete them were homemade and therefore not subject to the Commerce Clause.

The fact that the raw materials may have traveled in interstate commerce was ruled to be of no consecquence.

This is new ground , as it has been , the practice of the Federal Government to maintain that they have jurisdiction over nearly every aspect of life , due to the Commerce Clause.

There have been a few legal cases where the Government has prosecuted individuals for things such as homemade child pornography and homegrown marijuana , later to have the higher courts overturn the conviction because the court found that the circumstances did not involve interstate commerce and therefore the Federal Government had no jurisdiction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
Something I heard is going on November 29th. I dont know the legal terms for it but it has something to do with Stewarts case.I was going to sell a sten kit I have laying around but in light of all this I think I will hold on to it and would advise you all to get one from IO for $40 if anything cool happens there will be a run on them like we couldnt even imagine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Don't get me wrong, Stewart is a great case. I just don't know how useful it will really be for the pro-gun movement.

We have a case here from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals styled US v. Emerson that may prove to be the real deal. It held in 1999 that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right. I'm writing a thesis this semester on the fact that in light of Emerson, many federal gun laws are probably unconstitutional in the 5th Circuit since they are either not narrowly tailored or not necessary to meet a compelling state interest. If it turns out OK and if anyone is interested, I may post it up here. The problem, though, is that it only applies to the 5th Circuit. All of the other Circuits have rejected the fundamental individual rights model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
paladin said:
The problem, though, is that it only applies to the 5th Circuit.
How would the equal protection clause pertain to this.. I thought our Bill of Rights garunteed us the same rights and protection of the law that all the states have??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,071 Posts
paladin said:
Don't get me wrong, Stewart is a great case. I just don't know how useful it will really be for the pro-gun movement.

We have a case here from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals styled US v. Emerson that may prove to be the real deal. It held in 1999 that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right. I'm writing a thesis this semester on the fact that in light of Emerson, many federal gun laws are probably unconstitutional in the 5th Circuit since they are either not narrowly tailored or not necessary to meet a compelling state interest. If it turns out OK and if anyone is interested, I may post it up here. The problem, though, is that it only applies to the 5th Circuit. All of the other Circuits have rejected the fundamental individual rights model.

would like to read if you post it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
droog said:
Something I heard is going on November 29th. I dont know the legal terms for it but it has something to do with Stewarts case.I was going to sell a sten kit I have laying around but in light of all this I think I will hold on to it and would advise you all to get one from IO for $40 if anything cool happens there will be a run on them like we couldnt even imagine.

First: I'm not a lawyer
Second: Doesn't the reading of the case make it clear that from the court's perspective, although he used the parts as a "basis" for the MG, many of the parts were home made and "unique" which is part of why the interstate commerce clause didn't hold. They seem to make the point that if he simply built a kit from parts this wouldn't qualify???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I think the short story is that the Equal Protection clause guarantees that people who are similarly situated are treated similarly. People outside the 5th Circuit are not similarly situated to people inside it, so the EP clause does not really apply.

Look at it like this: California and Texas have very different gun laws. There is no EP violation there, likewise there is no EP violation when the different Circuit Courts have different holdings. The Supreme Court should have heard either Emerson or Silveira, but it did not. It's pretty crappy when people in California have less constitutional rights than me just because of where they live.
 

·
President for Life Field Marshall Doctor Bluedog D
Joined
·
1,604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
The decisions of each circuit Court of appeals are binding on all lower (district) federal courts in the circuit. Therfore, if the 5th circuit issues an oppinion, it becomes the law in that circuit. District courts in other circuits MAY follow the opinion. When there is a split in the circuits, which we now have between the 9th (no individual right under 2nd amd.) and the 5th (yes, an individual right) then the Supreme Court must resolve the split, and that diesision applies to all Courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
He used some sten parts. I dont know which ones but I would guess the trigger group and maybe the bolt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
paladin said:
It's my understanding that the holding of Stewart says the feds cannot regulate a completely home-built machine gun using the Commerce clause. Look at where the NFA is located. 26 USC is based on the taxing power of the feds.
The Court indicated the Fed could regulate homebuilt autos made with the intent to sell or transfer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts

·
President for Life Field Marshall Doctor Bluedog D
Joined
·
1,604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
You DOG, you! :p
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top