"Make"- yes.So you want to become case law…..this is how you become case law!!!!
"Become"- no
"Make"- yes.So you want to become case law…..this is how you become case law!!!!
From what I read. One of the Governments argument was he sold (or told how to buy a card) a card that had etching as basically a cut out. Here’s an interesting channel that posted this a year ago. Obviously with these that were probably used by the US Attorney. Didn’t really make a jury buy the defense.Here’s the thing under the first amendment isn’t he guaranteed free speech look at all the books you can go buy out there with way worse stuff in them
Thats a Tee Shirt...Don't put your crimes on the Internet.
Thats a Tee Shirt...
Real answer- because the ATF doesn't determine what a machinegun is. It determines what it will investigate and what it will pass along to the U.S. Attorney. It's decisions in this regard are not binding.How can it be immaterial if it was something tangible from the authority that led you to believe it was ok?
Edit: Not sure if you might have been sarcastic here and i didn't initially pick it up.
Seems to me the U.S. Attorney accepted ATFs determination that this was a machine gun according to their interpretation and proceeded with the prosecution.Real answer- because the ATF doesn't determine what a machinegun is. It determines what it will investigate and what it will pass along to the U.S. Attorney. It's decisions in this regard are not binding.
Seems unfair. I agree.
Ultimately, the statute and the case law interpreting it is the authority and a trial and appeal may be the only way to determine what this card was. That's how it works at the edges. Stay away from the edges.
I am not saying that the ATF doesn't have an opinion. I am saying that its opinion, or that of the U.S. Attorney standing alone, are not the law. They are interpretations of the law and a judge can accept or reject them.*Seems to me the U.S. Attorney accepted ATFs determination that this was a machine gun according to their interpretation and proceeded with the prosecution.
That's why I think it would be material if the defendant were to present some tangible evidence that he was led to believe by the ATF that it was ok to contradict that.. But I guess its moot anyway because he didn't get that tangible proof in writing to present in his defense.
But were they in violation of the law as written? or a subjective interpretation of the law that the ATF determined out of thin air and the US Attorney ran with it Seems to me that this whole thing revolves around ATFs interpretation nucleus. That's the point I'm making.I am not saying that the ATF doesn't have an opinion. I am saying that its opinion, or that of the U.S. Attorney standing alone, are not the law. They are interpretations of the law and a judge can accept or reject them.
The ATF saying "no you're good" is not a defense IF your actions are found to be a violation of the law as written.
Again, seems unfair and is, but I don't make the law, I report it.
An agency interpretation that is "arbitrary and capricious" will not be applied even under Chevron deference (long story).But were they in violation of the law as written? or a subjective interpretation of the law that the ATF determined out of thin air and the US Attorney ran with it Seems to me that this whole thing revolves around ATFs interpretation nucleus. That's the point I'm making.
One wonders about the machine shop that made the cards. Cooperated?
I guess the court granted chevron deference by accepting ATFs interpretation that they made up as law by letting the proceedings continue. no matter how ludicrous it was. It appears that they can do so without impunity and make up law when they want to go after somebody. which in this case they determined that an autokey Card is a machine gun.I am not saying that the ATF doesn't have an opinion. I am saying that its opinion, or that of the U.S. Attorney standing alone, are not the law. They are interpretations of the law and a judge can accept or reject them.*
The ATF saying "no you're good" is not a defense IF your actions are found to be a violation of the law as written.
Again, seems unfair and is, but I don't make the law, I report it.
[ETA]* Here I am only talking about using an ATF opinion that something is not a machinegun as a defense. I will not get into it, but there is a fight taking place over what deference is to be given to agency interpretations of statutes (if any). However, that is on the other side of the equation- what constitutes a violation of the law. A court can reject an agency interpretation, but is unlikely to when the agency finds a violation of the statute. The difference between how Agency opinions as to what is "safe" and their interpretations as to when there is a violation is why this is so unfair,
Apparently, this court didn't think it was "arbitrary and capricious" The court allowed it to proceed giving deference to the ATF's interpretation of the law and two people were convicted by that subjective standard. It just proves that the whole practice of chevron deference is arbitrary in nature and can be corrupted based upon agency whims at any given time. It should be highly scrutinized by the court.An agency interpretation that is "arbitrary and capricious" will not be applied even under Chevron deference (long story).
The current Supreme Court has questions similar to yours.