• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

On Lightning Links and the NFA - A Thought Experiment

Whether we like the rules or not, the question should be "to what use did you put that washer", rather than "to what use do you intend to put that washer".

Of course, the ATF currently wrote the rules so that you can be apprehended for thought crime.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt with ATF's overly-broad interpretation on conversion parts that could make an NFA weapon out of a standard sporting rifle or pistol.
Their ruling was against ATF in this case, but the Court agreed that IF the combination of parts could only be assembled into an illegal item, then that was how it would be classified. (the "constructive possession" doctrine).

The Court said if the intent of the company that made the gun or gun parts and accessories is that they make and sell a legal, non-NFA firearm, then this is like a presumption that applies to keep the weapon kit legal absent some evidence that the owner of the kit really DID, factually, assemble it into an illegal configuration. The U.S. Supreme Court did not agree with gun-rights advocates that any combination of parts could be owned, so long as the owner didn't actually put them together to form a working gun that was unlawful.



OCTOBER TERM, 1991

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS CO.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

No. 91-164. Argued January 13, 1992 - Decided June 8, 1992
Respondent manufactures the "Contender" pistol and, for a short time, also manufactured a kit that could be used to convert the Contender into a rifle with either a 21-inch or a ten-inch barrel. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms advised respondent that when the kit was possessed or distributed with the Contender, the unit constituted a "firearm" under the National Firearms Act (NFA or Act), 26 U. S. C. § 5845(a)(3), which defines that term to include a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches long, known as a short-barreled rifle, but not a pistol or a rifle having a barrel 16 inches or more in length. Respondent paid the $200 tax levied by § 5821 upon anyone "making" a "firearm" and filed a claim for a refund. When its refund claim proved fruitless, respondent brought this suit under the Tucker Act. The Claims Court entered summary judgment for the Government, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a short-barreled rifle "actually must be assembled" in order to be "made" within the NF A's meaning.

Held: The judgment is affirmed. 924 F.2d 1041, affirmed.

JUSTICE SOUTER, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concluded that the Contender and conversion kit when packaged together have not been "made" into a short-barreled rifle for NFA purposes.

**************

The Government's analogy of the partially assembled bicycle to the packaged pistol and conversion kit is not, of course, exact. While each example includes some unassembled parts, the crated bicycle parts can be assembled into nothing but a bicycle, whereas the contents of Thompson/Center's package can constitute a pistol, a long-barreled rifle, or a short-barreled version. These distinctions, however, do define the issues raised by the Government's argument, the first of which is whether the aggregation and segregation of separate parts that can be assembled only into a shor-barreled rifle and are sufficient for that purpose amount to "making" that firearm, or whether the firearm is not "made" until the moment of final assembly. This is the issue on which the Federal and Seventh Circuits are divided.

We think the language of the statute provides a clear answer on this point. The definition of "make" includes not only "putting together," but also "manufacturing ... or otherwise producing a firearm." If as Thompson/Center submits, a firearm were only made at the time of final assembly (the moment the firearm was "put together"), the additional language would be redundant. Congress must, then, have understood "making" to cover more than final assembly, and some disassembled aggregation of parts must be included. Since the narrowest example of a combination of parts that might be included is a set of parts that could be used to make nothing but a short-barreled rifle, the aggregation of such a set of parts, at the very least, must fall within the definition of "making" such a rifle.
 
There is a series of cases, that I don't feel like looking up, feel free to do so, where some guy in Texas wanted to publish drawings online for free, that got ATF panties in a wad,

His argument was based on the First Amendment, free speech, that he was wasn't producing anything but some computer code.

He lost.
 
There is a series of cases, that I don't feel like looking up, feel free to do so, where some guy in Texas wanted to publish drawings online for free, that got ATF panties in a wad,

His argument was based on the First Amendment, free speech, that he was wasn't producing anything but some computer code.

He lost.
With all the lawsuits against the ATF right now, he should definitely appeal it and tell those cocksuckers to suck our collective...
Screenshot_2022-10-29-23-15-29-90_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg
 
I don't have a problem with ATF's.....
may your chains rest lightly.

no items should be illegal. Only actions with them. If I want to make a silenced machinegun I should absolutely be allowed to. Not paying a poll tax and waiting for .gov's permission, not getting an SOT/07 and jumping through the hoops, none of that. Shall not be infringed doesn't say **** about "unless you tried to buy it after 1986 then no..."
 
may your chains rest lightly.

no items should be illegal. Only actions with them. If I want to make a silenced machinegun I should absolutely be allowed to. Not paying a poll tax and waiting for .gov's permission, not getting an SOT/07 and jumping through the hoops, none of that. Shall not be infringed doesn't say **** about "unless you tried to buy it after 1986 then no..."


Well, this thread isn't about your opinion on the legality of any gun control laws. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but it is absolutely worthless in this thread.

Go back to the post #1 on page 1
and think of the question presented.

I answered the question.

You are ranting that all gun control is illegitimate and the answer to any "question about the law" is silly because there is no law but that which you choose to recognize (which is none, on the topic of guns.)
 
Well, this thread isn't about your opinion on the legality of any gun control laws. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but it is absolutely worthless in this thread.

Go back to the post #1 on page 1
and think of the question presented.

I answered the question.

You are ranting that all gun control is illegitimate and the answer to any "question about the law" is silly because there is no law but that which you choose to recognize (which is none, on the topic of guns.)

Isn’t that what all laws are? Just a group of peoples opinions on what rules their making and why?
 
Back
Top Bottom