« Remarkably clumsy | Main | Worst burglar ever »
922(o) -- or NFA -- held void for vagueness as applied to LEO
A district court has ruled in US v. Vest, dismissing the indictment (pdf file). The charge was possession of a machinegun in violation of 18 USC 922(o) and without proper registration under NFA, and the defendant was a police officer.
Apparently, he got the MG for use in official duty, certifying it as such (getting around 922(o)'s ban), and registering it as such. The prosecution argument was that 922(o) makes an exception for possession by a police dept or under authority of such a dept, and that that didn't cover personal ownership by an officer, but only by the PD.
Court found the requirement void for vagueness as applied (that is, under these particular circumstances, not under any possible circumstances).
Comments
Ah, the "but he's a cop" exception to the federal courts' rule that the gun owner always loses.
Posted by: 30yearprof at November 19, 2006 04:16 PM
If it really is void for LEOs, what is the substantive difference to current law? Is it just an exception for cops while they are LEOs? What happens if they retire or switch to a non LE career like accounting or law? Does the exemption follow the gun or just the LEO? If it doesnt follow the gun, to whom does ownership then revert? Is it forfeited to the state without compensation? Does he have to sell it to another 922(o) exempt party (like a going out of business SOT3 with post-86 samples must)?
Also, what is the definition of "authority of the United States..."? If it means "permission" you would think 922(o) wouldnt be a ban, since all of the makings and transfers of Title II weapons already require such permission.
Also, at what point does someone become an LEO? Sole source of income, > x hours per year, power of arrest, etc? Various state definitions of LEO vs federal?
Posted by: Beerslurpy at November 19, 2006 04:34 PM
And what if the weapon is acquired intially pursuant to LEO duties with one entity and then LEO is "loaned out" to another Enforcement organization. Does the authority to possess follow when the new duties do not require the weapon as essential or even required to conduct of duties?
Posted by: JD at January 14, 2008 08:45 PM