Knife_Sniper
Member
Here is 922(o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful
for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to -
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the
authority of, the United States or any department or agency
thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political
subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun
that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes
effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the decision:
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf
Here is the quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the four-factor Morrison test, section 922(o)
cannot be viewed as having a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. We therefore conclude that section 922(o) is
unconstitutional as applied to Stewart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAMN!!!
Am I reading this right?
*Sorry for stealing this off ARFCOM!!! I had to run this over here.*
It seems it says something to the extent of as long as a machine gun
doesent cross state lines at any time, its legal to make (new) ones for yourself.
Everyone at ARFCOM is confused, its like deer in the headlights. What does all this mean? Are our assumptions right? Is this the answer to legal full autos? Any lawyers in here???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful
for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to -
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the
authority of, the United States or any department or agency
thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political
subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun
that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes
effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the decision:
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf
Here is the quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the four-factor Morrison test, section 922(o)
cannot be viewed as having a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. We therefore conclude that section 922(o) is
unconstitutional as applied to Stewart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAMN!!!
Am I reading this right?
*Sorry for stealing this off ARFCOM!!! I had to run this over here.*
It seems it says something to the extent of as long as a machine gun
doesent cross state lines at any time, its legal to make (new) ones for yourself.
Everyone at ARFCOM is confused, its like deer in the headlights. What does all this mean? Are our assumptions right? Is this the answer to legal full autos? Any lawyers in here???