Oh great, I'm quoting myself now. Well according to me....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf
In a nutshell a felon is busted for possessing machine guns.
Goes to court, argues 2nd amendment grants him rights to keep and bear arms, despite previousl felony conviction*. Also argues that the machinegun is not subject to ban, and this is also unconstitutional.
Findings (in a nutshell):
1. You're a felon, you can't own.
2. The '68GCA and section 922 deal with interstate commerce and regulation, and because defendent Stewart manufactured parts for the gun to make them machineguns for personal use, they were not subject to the commerce laws. (He bought kits, but didn't just assemble them, he had to manufacture completely new parts, unlike off the shelf receivers, etc. So they weren't screw togethers of already regulated parts) Therefore the denial of possession of machine guns was unconstitutional, along with the denial of manufacturing for his own use was unconstitutional. Of course ATF effed up on this one, as they should have gone after him on the failure to register to manufacturer said items. They should have hung their federal hat on the '34 regulations. But they got too cocky.
Also if I were Stewart I think I would argue my original felony conviction. I read that his original conviction was for possession and transfer of a machinegun. Sounds like that could possibly be overturned if he's smart enough to fight it.
Anyway, the court ruled, but ATF is appealing and arguing this finding about MG's, even though they have the guy on conviction of felony possession of a firearm. And this ruling by 9th Circuit is just sitting in limbo, so don't start building anything yet. This will be as big as the 18th Amendment being repealed, or it will dissolve into nothing.
You'd think they would be ecstatic. They can start collecting $200 taxes again for guys building their own machine guns. So here we again see they have some agenda. They (the BATF) are actively trying to deny us rights, rather than regulate. Which is what they were created for.
[thread drift]
*Personally I agree with him on this. Either a convicted felon has all his rights, or he has none. If he doesn't have the 2nd he most certainly doesn't have his 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights either. So if he can't buy a gun we should be able to take a convicted felon who has served his time and A: Shut him up. B: Let the troops party at his house. C: Break into his house without a warrant. D: Force him to incriminate himself by whatever means neccessary. Of course this is ridiculous. Men are not animals, and if a con has served his time he should be granted the rights afforded a man. Then again I think a lot more stuff should be a capital offense...
[/thread drift
[EDIT]
BTW Do a search for the US vs. Stewart case. I know this has come up before on THR. That's where I heard it first. If you start talking about it in this thread you'll be off topic. I posted this hear as it has bearing with the subject of the ATF and their overstepping of the authority granted them. Hence the "gang" like activity.
