« NH case on standard of review | Main | Wyoming appeals ruling vs. BATF »
New trial granted in NFA case
Here's the ruling, as a small pdf file.
One gets the impression the court was a bit put off by ATF. (1) The raid was without any basis. Defendant had been an NFA dealer, and when he went out of that business, transferred an NFA gun to himself. At trial, the US Attorney conceded that was entirely legal. ATF either didn't notice the transfer, or claimed it was illegal in some other way. (2) The court cites an ATF advisory letter which clearly suggests that the count upon which defendant was convicted was without basis.
Basically, he had two shoulder stocks for pistols, and two pistols that would take them. One was a registered full auto pistol, for which the stocks were perfectly legal, and one was an ordinary semiauto pistol -- which, if a stock were attached to it, would be an NFA short barreled rifle. The court cites Thompson-Center for the proposition that possession of a set of components that could be made into a short barrelled rifle is not improper if it has "obvious utility" for also making non-NFA handguns or rifles. This is rather the flip side of that: the components had obvious utility for making a registered NFA firearm.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
I covered this story in a post last week, but the text of the decision fills in a few blanks. My favorite part of the story is what the BATF-ers had to do to the M-14 to get it to fire full-auto.
The jury was NOT fooled into thinking it was "easily convertible."
My questions now are A) did they confiscate his entire collection upon his original conviction, and B) does he get to keep his stuff until the outcome of the next trial (assuming the BATF will - as they are wont - not give up until they've ruined someone completely.)
Sounds like both the court and Congress were trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? From a neophytes’ viewpoint, why does either care whether a stock can be attached to a semi-auto pistol, thus making it more accurate?
Skip--
"From a neophytes’ viewpoint, why does either care whether a stock can be attached to a semi-auto pistol, thus making it more accurate?"
Because putting a stock on a rifle creates a "short barrelled rifle", which is legal only by permission from the ATF, FBI background clearance by a set of fingerprints, and a $200 tax. It's akin to taking a hack saw to a rifle barrel and forming a pistol grip out of the stock - a Bonnie and Clyde activity frowned upon by the law enforcement community and possible catalyst of the original legislation.
It seems a bit silly, but yes, it is a huge no-no to put a stock on a pistol, unless you also increase the barrel and meet a minimum overall length. I suppose you could put a monstrosity of a stock to meet the OAL, but I've never heard of that and it would reneder the gun difficult if not impossible to shoot.
Angels on the head of a pin is the exact analogy that people who know NFA stuff use all the time. The fact is that the NFA was written with 1930's technology in mind.
It talks about short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns, any other weapons, destructive devices, suppressors, and machine guns and tries to put all things firearm into neat little categories. At the time, the most powerful handgun in the world was the brand new S&W .357 Magnum. Nobody had even come close to thinking of things like AR and AK pistols firing rifle rounds, bolt action pistols firing rifle rounds, etc.
The NFA statute/regs are as obsolete as a typewriter, yet because of all the political bad blood regarding firearms laws it cannot be amended; or better yet, scrapped outright. Kind of like a lot of other 1930's statutes that have flat out-lived their usefulness or applicability to the real world - take ag subsidies for example.
A short barrelled rifle is different from a long barrelled pistol how? and why is this a bad thing? And why is it the governments business? and aren't restrictions against such "infringemenst" that "shall not be...."?
The only things that matter are barrel length and overall length. Generally speaking, if it has a rifled bore, a buttstock (detachable or not) designed to be put against the shoulder, a barrel less than 16 inches, and an overall length of less than 26 inches, it is a short barreled rifle even if it started out as a pistol.
For example, you can buy a kit for the 1911 pistol that has a detachable buttstock and a 16 inch barrel. Combine them both with the standard pistol and it is perfect legal. You can use the 16 inch barrel without the buttstock and it is perfectly legal. However, to legally use the buttstock with the original 5 inch barrel you must first pay the $200 "making" tax because the statute classifies it as a short barrel rifle.
As far as infringement, you have to remember that the NFA is a tax statute. As far as federal law is concerned, you can own short barrel rifles and shotguns (or destructive devices, AOWs, suppressors, or pre-May 1986 transferable machine guns) provided you pay the $200 tax each time. Your state law may vary. See, in 1934, taxes on constitutional rights had not been declared unconstitutional. The ban on new transferable machine guns is another matter, of course, that will have to wait for another day, if ever.
Using modern two handed weaver technique does more for effective pistol shooting than attaching a floppy buttstock. Just another example of the obsolete stupidity of NFA law.
Misstatements of facts in court is perjury. This judge wasn't too put out with ATF, was he? He didn't send anyone to lock-up for lying.