State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 923 · 18 U.S.C. § 925 · 26 U.S.C. § 4 · 26 U.S.C. § 5801 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5849 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Connally v. General Construction Co. · United States v. Sisson · Morrison v. People of State of California · 115 Wash. 2d 171 - City of Spokane v. Douglass · 98 Wash. 2d 484 - State v. McCullum
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun ...; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun ..., or in converting a weapon into a machine gun.... (2) This section shall not apply to: (a) Any peace officer in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty, or to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty; or (b) A person ... who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns...: (i) To be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States; (ii) To be used or purchased by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies; or (iii) For exportation in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations. (3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun ... was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter“It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, or any part thereof capable of use or assembling or repairing any machine gun: Provided, however, That such limitation shall not apply to any peace officer in the discharge of official duty, or to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington: Provided further, That this section does not apply to a person, including an employee of such person, who or which is exempt from or licensed under the National Firearms Act ( 26 U.S.C. section 5801 et seq.), and engaged in the production, manufacture, or testing of weapons or equipment to be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States, and having a United States government industrial security clearance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter“A person, other than a law enforcement officer or member of the military, may possess machine guns ... only if in compliance with federal law. Both law enforcement officers and members of the military must be engaged in official duties to possess lawfully such firearms. A grandfather provision is included for law enforcement officers and members of the armed forces who acquired such firearms prior to the effective date of this restriction. Washington firearm manufacturers may produce and repair machine guns .... Manufacturers also may sell such firearms to domestic governmental law enforcement agencies and, if in compliance with federal law, to foreign countries. Employees of the manufacturers must undergo fingerprinting and background checks.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.