Machine guns are illegal in Michigan, so this has no effect on me even if it holds up.fansipans said:
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??paladin said:The problem, though, is that it only applies to the 5th Circuit.
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.
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.
The Court indicated the Fed could regulate homebuilt autos made with the intent to sell or transfer.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.