« Thoughts on military status | Main | Claremont Institute takes on UN self-defense stance »
922(o) -- or NFA -- held void for vagueness as applied to LEO
St. Louis papers are reporting that a Federal judge threw out a machinegun case against a police rifle instructor. He bought it privately, and used it only for police purposes. The court held the statute void for vagueness as applied to him.
The article doesn't say which statute the prosecution relied upon. 922(o) bans post-ban MGs with an exception for "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." There might be ambiguity with regard to possession "under authority of ... a State, or department, agency..." The article reports that, whichever statute it was, ATFE takes the position that it excepts only a police dept itself, and not an individual officer who owns one.
It might be NFA, but that exempts "A firearm may be transferred without the payment of the transfer tax imposed by section 5811 to any State, possession of the United States, any political subdivision thereof, or any official police organization of such a government entity engaged in criminal investigations," 26 USC ยง5853, which sounds much clearer in saying only the PD itself can register the gun tax-free.
[Hat tip to reader Michael Gale of Shall Not Be Infringed,
Comments
Any likelihood this will be appealed?
Posted by: Beerslurpy at September 1, 2006 04:31 PM
The simple answer is no, it can't be appealed because there was not a judgement of innocent or guilty.
That's part of what makes this interesting. Did the judge dismiss with or without prejudice. I don't know. If with prejudice then its done. But not completely because of the fact that one of the other officers entered a guilty plea. What are his options at this point?
To me, another part of the interest is that ignorance of the law was an acceptable excuse for someone for whom knowledge of the law is an arguable part of their job skills.
MichaelG
Posted by: Michael at September 1, 2006 05:44 PM
What, the US cant appeal the judge's decision in the case? That makes no sense.
Posted by: Beerslurpy at September 2, 2006 09:50 PM
LEOs are held to a higher standard.
Posted by: Some Guy at September 3, 2006 09:13 AM