Father Knows Best
Member
Sort of but not quite. The case is United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003). In that case, Stewart was prosecuted for (among other things) possession of five machine guns that he had built himself, largely using parts that he machined in his own home. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he argued that the law banning mere possession of a machine gun was unconstitutional because it was beyond Congress's enumerated Constitutional powers. The only potential Constitutional basis for the NFA was the interstate commerce clause, and since he had not bought or sold the machine guns or moved them across state lines, there was no basis for Congress to regulate their possession. The 9th Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision and overturned his conviction.
The U.S., however, immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, which granted a stay of the decision pending appeal. Although the Supremes ultimately did not hear the cases, On June 13, 2005, they did vacate the 9th Circuit's judgment and remand the case for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ___ (2005). The Gonzales case was the one in which the Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 vote that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the local growth and use of marijuana.
While the 9th Circuit has not acted on the remand, yet (it's been just a little over two months), the outcome is pretty much all but determined. In light of Gonzales, the 9th Circuit will have to reverse itself and affirm Stewart's conviction for illegal possession of a machine gun. Thus, the 9th Circuit's decision in Stewart has effectively been overturned.
