United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co.

United States, Petitioner v. Thompson-Center Arms Company
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 (more) 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
Case history
Prior	Thompson/Ctr. Arms Co. v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 725 (1990); reversed, 924 F.2d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1991); cert. granted, 502 U.S. 807 (1991).
Holding
	The Court held 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.
Court membership
	Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Harry Blackmun; John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor; Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy; David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
Plurality	Souter, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor
Concurrence	Scalia, joined by Thomas
Dissent	White, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy
Dissent	Stevens
Laws applied
	National Firearms Act

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

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 (410 mm) barrel constituted a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act.

Arguments

The US Government's argument centered on 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 (250 mm) barrel attached for it to be a short-barreled rifle.

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.

gollark: Oh no.

gollark: Yes.

gollark: Impressive, the Go program I'm using just segfaulted.

gollark: I wonder where my spare USB WiFi thing went.

gollark: There are probably limits on how strongly you can feel a thing. At the very least you'll eventually run out of neurotransmitters.

References

United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992).

External links

Text of United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992) is available from: Cornell Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Thompson Center Arms
Stephen Halbrook's Page on the case
Full Text of Volume 504 of the United States Reports at www.supremecourt.gov

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992).