The federal district court agreed with Farmer, but the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, did not (Farmer v. Higgins [907 F.2d 1041, 1990]). The court thought this to be a relatively simple case. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 states:
Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.
This subsection does not apply with respect to: (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machine gun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
The court studied the history of the case and found that Congress clearly intended to ban the private ownership of machine guns. After all,
If Congress did not intend to change prior law by prohibiting the private possession of machine guns, then Section 922(o)(2)(B)'s "grandfather" clause (which exempts from the general prohibition those machine guns lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986) becomes meaningless.
When the law speaks about production "under the authority" of a government entity, it means a machine gun made for the military, for a police force, or one being made under government authority for sale to a foreign country. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals and, in 1991, denied review of the case, accepting the lower court's finding that Farmer did not have a right to make a machine gun.
User Comments Add a comment…