United States v. Benner’s Empirical Analysis
417 F.2d 421 · 1969
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 5821 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Leary v. United States · Marchetti v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Grosso v. United States · Haynes v. United States
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Prior to Haynes, it was uniformly held that the Fifth Amendment was not violated by the provisions of § 5851 dealing with possession of firearms which had been illegally made under § 5821 8 and the same result was reached in eases involving the illegal transportation of firearms in interstate commerce in violation of § 5855 9 . Haynes did not deal with the interrelationship of §§ 5821 and 5851, and the Court of Appeals decisions quoted in footnote 8 11 remain as authority (at least as to one not a maker) unless the ratio decidendi of Haynes points in an opposite direction. We think that it does not — that the effect of Haynes was, to equate § 5841 and § 5851 in terms of registration — to condemn § 5851 for requiring a registration — to repudiate a construction of the registration' requirements of § 5851 which would make the offense the crime of possessing a firearm which someone else had failed to register. The Supreme Court’s careful analysis of the language of § 5851, with its emphasis on the words ‘at any time’ and the words ‘receive or possess’ which are used in the transportation and making requirements of § 5851, and which are not used in connection with the registration requirements, indicates a recognition by the Supreme Court of the difference between the interrelationship of § 5841 (the registration section) and § 5851, and the interrelationship between § 5821 (the making section) and § 5851. Insofar as the Fifth Amendment is concerned (and disregarding for the mom”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even so, it is not the manufacture of the firearms at which the law was aimed — the manufacture in and of itself is harmless. The concern is with the use of the firearm in the commission of murders, robberies and other crimes of violence. The maker of the firearm does not, by declaring his intent to make a firearm, make any declaration of an intention to do any illegal act. A firearm could be legally possessed in most states, and we specifically note that it could be legally possessed in Oregon, by a non-felon. We perceive a difference between a law which requires the declaration that one is engaged in an activity which is in itself criminal and one which requires a person to declare an intention to engage in an activity which is not in itself criminal and which does not of necessity lead to any criminal act. For this reason and because the area of the firearm is not permeated to the same extent with criminal statutes as are the wagering and marijuana areas, we do not believe that this case is governed by Marchetti, Grosso and Leary, [ 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed.2d 57 ]. [Footnote omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.