United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Law or the Law Portal may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.

United States, Petitioner v. Thompson-Center Arms Company

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued January 13, 1992
Decided June 8, 1992

Full case name:	United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company

Citations:	504 U.S. 505; 112 S. Ct. 2102; 119 L. Ed. 2d 308; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3391; 60 U.S.L.W. 4480; 69 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1493; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4793; 92 Daily Journal DAR 7605; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 346

Prior history:	On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Holding

The Court held that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short barrelled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16 inch barrel.

Court membership

Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas

Case opinions

Plurality by: Souter
Joined by: Rehnquist, O'Connor
Concurrence by: Scalia
Joined by: Thomas
Dissent by: White
Joined by: Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy
Dissent by: Stevens

Laws applied

National Firearms Act

United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992)^[1], was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

1 Background
2 Arguments
3 Decision
4 See also
5 External links

[edit] Background

The legal dispute in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company arose when officials from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms contacted Thompson Center Arms informing them that the kit of the Contender Pistol that included a stock and a 16 inch barrel constituted a short-barrelled rifle under the National Firearms Act.

[edit] Arguments

The US Government's argument centered around the analogy of a disassembled bicycle still being a bicycle.

Stephen Halbrook argued on behalf of Thompson Center Arms and stated that the weapon would have to be assembled with both the stock and the 10 inch barrel attached to it to be a short-barreled rifle.

[edit] Decision

The court ruled in Thompson Center Arms' favor in that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short barreled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16 inch barrel.

Justice Scalia also noted that there is a warning carved on the stock telling the user to not attach the stock to the receiver when the 10 inch barrel is attached to the receiver or vice versa.

This circumstance caused the court to apply the rule of lenity since the NFA carries criminal penalties with it. This meant that ambiguous statutes are interpreted against the government.