From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 53
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Apr15.142322.1318@atlastele.com>, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:
> You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make 
> sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.
> 
> Say U.S.C. 922 :
> 
> (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
> any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
> 
>  Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person" 
> might also be an artificial entity that is created by government 
  ^^^^^
> and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I 
> don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on 
> an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
> me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law 
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> does not make it LAW. 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say, above.

> Everyone knows that laws are constitional
> until it goes to court.

Not exactly:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes
 no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
 contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
 Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the
 form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
 ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
 time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so
 branding it."

"No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are
 bound to enforce it."
 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177
      late 2d, Sec 256

> So, has it ever gone to court, not
> just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"
> Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told
> by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?

Automatic weapons?  No.  The Supreme Court has never heard such a case.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

