Man wants to withdraw guilty plea of possession of an unregistered machine gun.

WTVF news (Nashville) ^ | 12/2/03 | Unknown

[Blood of Tyrants]

A former music minister in Mount Juliet wants to withdraw his guilty plea to possession of unregistered machine guns. Mark Lancaster's request came after a federal appellate court ruled the U.S. ban of automatic weapons doesn't apply to homemade versions. Lancaster, 43, was arrested in January after ATF agents and Mount Juliet police found 15 World War Two-era machine guns at his home.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Interesting. We wil se how it goes.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Worthy?

[Bogey78O]

Interesting.

[Blood of Tyrants]

This guy lives across town from me. If he is successful, Sten, here I come!

[July 4th]

From what I remember, the reason the 9th Circuit ruled for the man with homemade machine guns was because they were homemade. It was an interstate commerce issue - not a gun law case - plus it wasn't in the same circuit. If this guy in Nashville has manufactured weapons, the facts of his case are completely different.

[RandallFlagg]

PING!

[Always A Marine]

It was an interstate commerce issue - not a gun law case...

Automatic weapons cases are tax issues arising from commerce (i.e.: the sale of an automatic weapon). In order to lawfully obtain an automatic weapon or convert an existing weapon for automatic fire, one must pay a fee (tax) to obtain a license for the purchase. If you obtain an automatic weapon without obtaining a license, you will be prosecuted for failure to pay the tax on the transaction -- the license fee. But these guys neither obtained automatic weapons from others nor altered existing firearms; they built them themselves from scratch.

The recent 9th Circuit ruling implies that without the trigger of a transaction (purchase or conveyance) as the basis for the tax, no tax is due and therefore no license is required. Too bad I have no machinist skills!

[coloradan]

There is a flaw somewhere in there, because the BATFE has put many people in jail for fabricating "illegal" silencers from scratch - or even for possessing washers or steel wool or whatever it was that they said could be made, and were intended to be made, into "illegal" silencers. NFA '34 covers machine guns and silencers both and in the same way AFAIK.

[Maelstrom]

Correct, the BATF has determined that possession of a Seer is possession of a machine gun.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You are absolutely correct, it IS a different circuit court, thank goodness. The guns were still homemade. IIRC, the guns in question were Sten guns and possibly an M3 greasegun, both very simple to make.

By "If this guy in Nashville has manufactured weapons", do you mean to question if he posessed weapons manufactured by someone else or that he manufactured the weapons? If it is the former, of course it is an interstate commerce question. If it is the latter, if he mnaufactured them for his own use and not for resale, it isn't (according to the 9th Circus).

[July 4th]

I meant "manufactured" in the sense of mass-scale manufacturing for the military, so if that were the case, then IC would apply.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Actually, you can get a manufacturers license and make all the prototype machine guns you want. Besides, if he manufactured them himself, employing no others, and selling none of them, what difference does it make how many?

The ATF has ruled that you may manufacture all the non-machine gun firearms you want as long as you do not sell them or even give them away. You may only pass them down in your will.

[g'nad]

hmmmm... how are yer machinist's skills?

[FreedomCalls]

Don't forget to take into account the fact that one of the big reasons the 9th ruled that Stewart did not affect interstate commerce was the fact that he was a convicted felon. He had no way to persue obtaining a legal weapon. Therefore his manufacturing a weapon did not remove a weapon from interstate commerce that he could have purchased. If you can legally obtain a NFA weapon, then your manufacture of such a weapon will affect interstate commerce because you are not going to buy one in the open market -- one which is in interstate commerce. Catch 22. If you can legally purchase one, then IC applies to you and you cannot manufacture. If you CANNOT legally purchase one, then IC does not apply, and you can manufacture, nor can you transfer, BUT because you cannot buy one you cannot possess one either.

Also the decision was heavily weighed on the fact that the weapon Stewart made was not of a type that had been manufacted commercially. He designed one himself. A kit gun would still be illegal as would a conversion.

[Joe Brower]

Blood of Tyrants asked, "Worthy?".

Sure, what the heck! But don't you guys get any ideas, OK? As other posters have noted here, the BATFags have other ideas, as do other circuit courts, and I don't want to get anyone into trouble.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Like I said, I am going to see how this plays in Tennessee. If he gets off with the ruling that the 1986 MG ban doesn't affect homemade MG's, I'm going to make one.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Also the decision was heavily weighed on the fact that the weapon Stewart made was not of a type that had been manufacted commercially. He designed one himself.

Are you sure about that? Because Congress has used the excuse of basically that SOME part or piece used in the manufacture of a device MUST have traveled interstate, therefore they can regulate it.

[Joe Brower]

I'm still waiting for some legal genius to concoct the "legal theory" that, since a person making a homemade MG in his garage has breathed some air molecules that had to have crossed state lines, said person must be given a 25 year trip to club fed.

I'm only half joking.

[mvpel]

"Expedient Homemade Firearms" from Paladin Press, contains instructions for how to make a 20-shot 9mm submachine gun with saws, drills, and lengths of steel tubing - no machining necessary. The barrel is thus unrifled, of course, but "it's a machine gun for cripes sake, not a target pistol."

[mvpel]

The steel pipe, saw blades, and drill bits used in its construction was "in or affecting interstate commerce" - you can COUNT ON the ATF taking this position.