Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« 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

Posted by David Hardy · 1 September 2006 03:13 PM

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,

· National Firearms Act

3 Comments

Beerslurpy | September 1, 2006 4:31 PM

Any likelihood this will be appealed?

Michael | September 1, 2006 5:44 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

Some Guy | September 3, 2006 9:13 AM

LEOs are held to a higher standard.