Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ansel12
Sorry about the link. My IP address changed and I hadn't noticed it.

Here's a good link to it:

US v Miller

You might also be interested in the following cases:

US v. Dalton
The money quote from US v. Dalton:

  Finally, the government argues that the Gun Control Act, of which section 922(o) is a part, should not be viewed as repealing the National Firearms Act, citing a provision of the Gun Control Act passed in 1968 to that effect. The court in Rock Island Armory rejected the same government argument, observing that "the 1968 Congress cannot bind the Congress of 1986, which decided to ban transfer and possession of machineguns. P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 453 (May 19, 1986). Further, a Congressional declaration in 1968 does not solve a constitutional problem which arose in 1986. The ban enacted in 1986 and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis."

US v. Rock Island Armory. 

And for US v. RIA:

 

Finally, the prosecution quotes an enactment passed in 1968 that the provisions of Title I of the Gun Control Act shall not modify or affect the National Firearms Act. (Footnote 15) However, the 1968 Congress cannot bind the Congress of 1986, which decided to ban transfer and possession of machineguns. P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 453 (May 19, 1986). (Footnote 16) Further, a Congressional declaration in 1968 does not solve a constitutional problem which arose in 1986. The ban enacted in 1986, and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis. It is the duty of the judiciary to declare such laws unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch. 137, 176-77, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).

In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are

DISMISSED.

Why is it that noone has ever heard of these cases? Granted, they are appelate level opinions, because the government was too frightened to take them to the Supreme Court, but they stand and are a part of caselaw. I've found citations to the above two cases in others, so they are still available to plaintiffs.

40 posted on 07/04/2006 10:35:08 PM PDT by zeugma (I reject your reality and substitute my own in its place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: zeugma

I'm familiar with them, and not sure they're relevant.

Upshot is that so long as 922(o) holds, the feds can't bust you for not paying the $200 tax on a post-'86 MG ... but you can still be busted for violating 922(o), which is harsher. The rulings simply do not go any further than that; they do NOT invalidate any part of NFA law which is not shadowed by 922(o).


41 posted on 07/05/2006 10:47:23 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson