Talk:Firearm case law in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] US v. Stewart
Somebody added United States v. Stewart to the section "Circuit Court cases relating directly to the Second Amendment." This is inappropriate because United States v. Stewart has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, it has everything to do with the commerce clause. It was therefore already listed on the page under "Firearm laws challenged on the Commerce Clause" and should remain listed there. It should certaily not be listed twice. Wodan 12:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Other government comments on the matter
This section was removed earlier. However, the comments by the legislative and executive branch (Senate and DOJ) in relation to interpretation of law is very important in relation to how courts interpret the same laws. The two cannot be separated. It is important to show which courts agree with the legislative and executive branch, and which courts do not. Wodan 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. The article is called "Firearm case law". Opinions of a Senate subcommittee, an Executive department, or even the President, about the 2nd amendment, while interesting, are not "case law". Also, this information is already at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which has a large section about various interpretations of the 2nd amendment. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Also, you reverted other changes to the article that had been made since. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] United States v. Rock Island Armory
short question:
What exactley does this mean? I'm having trouble understanding the implications of this case, is the 1934 NFA therefore invalid? Is the 1986 invalid? (Monkey 32606 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
- The 1934 National Firearms Act was centered around ATF tax stamp registration of certain firearms. The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act law made it generally illegal to possess automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Therefore the ATF does not allow the tax stamp registration of those firearms, since they are illegal to begin with. The court ruling said that you could not be prosecuted for violations of the 1934 laws of tax stamp requirements for post-86 automatic firearms. Since the ATF does not accept registrations for automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 anyway, how can you be held responsible for their registration? In short, you cannot be prosecuted for violation of both the 1934 law AND the 1986 law. Pre-86 automatic firearms are accountable to the 1934 NFA law, and post 86 autoamtic firerarms are accountable to the 1986 law. To put it another way, the 1934 NFA tax law is invalid for automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, since they are just flat out illegal to possess. Wodan 17:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Presser v. Illinois
This one was listed under a State Supreme Court section, for Illinois. It actually went on to the US Supreme Court (1886). Corrected this listing, and moved it up to the Supreme's section. Yaf 21:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
