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 §5853, 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,