翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Ramsey
・ United States v. Ramsey (1926)
・ United States v. Reese
・ United States v. Regenerative Sciences, LLC
・ United States v. Reidel
・ United States v. Reynolds
・ United States v. Richardson
・ United States v. Riggs
・ United States v. Riverside Bayview
・ United States v. Robel
・ United States v. Robinson
・ United States v. Rodriquez
・ United States v. Rogers
・ United States v. Ross
・ United States v. Russell
United States v. Rybar
・ United States v. Salerno
・ United States v. Sandoval
・ United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
・ United States v. Scheffer
・ United States v. Scheinberg
・ United States v. Schoon
・ United States v. Schooner Peggy
・ United States v. Schooner Sally
・ United States v. Schwimmer
・ United States v. Screws
・ United States v. Seale
・ United States v. Seeger
・ United States v. Segui
・ United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc.


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Rybar : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Rybar
United States of America v. Raymond Rybar, Jr., 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), is a case which was argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on September 13, 1995, and decided on December 30, 1996. The appeal addressed the constitutionality of a provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
==The case==
Raymond Rybar, Jr., a federally licensed firearms dealer, had conditionally pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing an illegal machine gun under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. He had possessed them at a gun show in Monroeville, Pennsylvania. The weapons in question were a ''Chinese Type 54 7.62-millimeter machine gun'' (see note below), and a U.S. Military M-3 .45 caliber submachine gun. Rybar was charged with four felonies, but only convicted of two. The other two counts were for failing to purchase a tax stamp (this is not registration) for the machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 for firearms that can not be classified under . The court ruled in ''United States v. Rock River Armory'' (1991), that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922o would violate the fundamental fairness found in the Fifth Amendment. Rybar argued that these convictions violated his Second Amendment rights as well as the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Rybar」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.