Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 23:59:09 -0500 (EST)
From: [davidm c g] at [juno.com] (David T McGuire)
To: Multiple recipients of list <[n--b--n] at [mainstream.net]>
Subject: We win one in court

Hey, guess what.  We won in court today!  See text below my sig file.

***********************************************************************
DAVID MCGUIRE SERVICE CONNECTED DISABLED VETERAN  US AIR FORCE
PRO SECOND AMENDMENT  WWW.TFS.NET/~DAVIDMCG
BUY AMERICAN  USWA LOCAL 14777  JI CASE KCK
**********************************************************************

      
      
      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FINDS FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS
        HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN

     In a case handled by Richard E. Gardiner, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has reversed
in part the decision of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia holding that Intratec (manufacturer of the
TEC-9, the TEC-DC9, and the TEC 22) and Penn Arms (manufacturer of
the Striker 12) did not have standing to challenge the
constitutionality of the Clinton "assault weapon" ban.

     In reversing the district court, the Court of Appeals held
that Intratec had standing to challenge the constitutionality of
the provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 banning the manufacture, transfer, and possession of the
"INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC 22" and that Penn Arms had
standing to challenge the provision of the Act banning the
manufacture, transfer, and possession of the "Striker 12."  The
constitutionality of these provisions was challenged on the grounds
that the Act exceeded the enumerated powers of Congress and that it
was a Bill of Attainder.

     The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court
"for further proceedings on the merits of the surviving claims."
As a result, the district court will now have to consider these
constitutional challenges on their merits.

     While allowing much of the case to go forward, the Court of
Appeals unfortunately also affirmed the district court's holding
that Intratec and Penn Arms did not have standing "at this time" to
challenge the generic definition provision as unconstitutionally
vague.  It also affirmed the district court's holding that Intratec
did not have standing "at this time" to challenge the enactment of
the magazine ban as beyond the enumerated powers of Congress.  The
Court of Appeals made clear, however, what facts need to be alleged
to give Intratec and Penn Arms standing to raise these challenges.
The complaint will thus be amended upon remand to the district
court to allege the necessary facts.

(Visit the Legal Corner, www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/gardiner.html)