United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=United States, Petitioner v. Thompson-Center Arms Company
ArgueDate=January 13
ArgueYear=1992
DecideDate=June 8
DecideYear=1992
FullName=United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company
USVol=504
USPage=505
Citation=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
Prior=On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Subsequent=
Holding=The Court held that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short barrelled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16 inch barrel.
SCOTUS=1991-1993
Plurality=Souter
JoinPlurality=Rehnquist, O'Connor
Concurrence=Scalia
JoinConcurrence=Thomas
Dissent=White
JoinDissent=Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy
Dissent2=Stevens
LawsApplied=National Firearms Act

"United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", 504 U.S. 505 (1992)ref|citation, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 barrel constituted a short-barrelled rifle under the National Firearms Act.

Arguments

The US Government's argument centered around 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 barrel attached to 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.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 504

External links

* ussc|504|505|1992 Full text opinion from Findlaw.com
* [http://www.tcarms.com/ Thompson Center Arms]
* [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0164.ZS.html Case syllabus from Cornell Law School]
* [http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html Stephen Halbrook's Page on the case]