[taxcontrol]

"possession of unregistered firearms"

Ok, I'd like to open a legal debate.

Let us suppose that I individual had both the skills and equipment required to manufacture a firearm (unfortunately I have neither) and decided to follow some known revolver or pistol design and made their own personal weapon. No paperwork is filed with the ATF or license obtained.

Now it would appear at face value that the individual would be in direct violation of the previously quoted possession law. However, it is my understanding that the basis for federal laws to regulate fire arms derives from the commerce clause of the Constitution.

If the individual who made the weapon did not sell, rent, lend, lease or transport the weapon across state lines, would the be any basis by which the feds could arrest this individual?

I know this is somewhat of a "if a tree fall in the woods...." type of question but it is point worth debateing to me.

[supercat]

If the individual who made the weapon did not sell, rent, lend, lease or transport the weapon across state lines, would the be any basis by which the feds could arrest this individual?

Actually, this poses some interesting statutory issues even beyond the constitutional ones. A collection of parts that can be turned into a machine gun in less than eight hours using common machining equipment is legally considered to be a "machine gun". This raises some interesting questions as to when a "machine gun" is considered to be created (epsecially since by that definition a Volvo could be considered a machine gun).

Of course, the BATF doesn't care what's legal or not--just what they mildly dislike or severely dislike.

[Ken H]

If the individual who made the weapon did not sell, rent, lend, lease or transport the weapon across state lines, would the be any basis by which the feds could arrest this individual?

Well, according to the plain language of the Commerce Clause, absolutely not. However, the New Deal era gave us a new concept called "substantial effects".

That is, any intrastate activity that could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce was now subject to Federal rules and regulations.

The infamous Wickard v Filburn case said that the feds could sanction a wheat farmer for growing wheat for his personal use. If every wheat farmer did that, it would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Bottom line, I'd guess you would be subject to Federal law, even though an honest reading of the Constitution says you are within your rights.

I'm not a lawyer and the preceding is just my opinion.

[heckler]

There was a court case dealing with this about a year ago. The defendent was manufacturing machine guns completely from scratch. He did not buy parts,sell parts, or sell completed weapons. He was cleared of all federal charges because the court ruled that the feds had no jurisdiction because it did not involve interstate commerce. The guys still in prison though because he was convicted of trying to hire some one to murder the original judge who convicted him. The case was out of New Mejico or Arizone I believe, dont remember the name of the guy though.

[MileHi]

If the individual who made the weapon did not sell, rent, lend, lease or transport the weapon across state lines, would the be any basis by which the feds could arrest this individual?

NO. But that wouldn't stop them...

[AdamSelene235]

Now it would appear at face value that the individual would be in direct violation of the previously quoted possession law. However, it is my understanding that the basis for federal laws to regulate fire arms derives from the commerce clause of the Constitution. If the individual who made the weapon did not sell, rent, lend, lease or transport the weapon across state lines, would the be any basis by which the feds could arrest this individual?

The courts have ruled that raising corn on you own land to feed to your own animals is "interstate commerce" and therefore can be controlled by the Federal Government.

You can try to fight this in court but you will be denied cert after you are financially bled to death.

In reality, there are no limits on government power.