View Full Version : Descriptions of various gun court cases (a-t)

07-04-2006, 8:12 PM
Here is a website that has alot of gun related court cases

And this time I checked alot of them and of the ones I opened didn't find a dead link.


the text below the url is only a very small sample the whole text would have filled about 10-15 posts here.


Descriptions of various gun court cases (a-t)
Copyright by James O. Bardwell, 1995-1997. Permission is given to reproduce this document or portions thereof with attribution, for non-commercial, or non-governmental use only. No claim to U.S. statutes, regulations or case opinions quoted herein.
Various gun court case links with no descriptions (same cases as this document)

Cases u-z

Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc., 656 F.Supp 771 (D.N.M. 1987)

Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc. 843 F.2d 406 (10th Cir. 1988)
n this case the 10th circuit appeals court rejects a suit that attempts to hold the maker and importer of a handgun liable for its use in a crime. The court says that there is no liability for making or selling a non-defective handgun.
Auto-Ordnance Corp. v. U.S., 822 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
This is a case about the application of the firearms excise tax, 11% of "sale price" on long guns sold for resale, 10% on handguns, and 11% on ammo. All of these apply in the commercial making context, of whole guns only, not parts, and only at the time of sale. Anyway the tax doesn't apply to accessories, even if sold with a gun, the question was what is an accessory? Auto-Ord claimed the things that made the Deluxe semi- auto Thompson different from the Std. model, an adjustable rear sight and front sight/compensator unit, were accessories; that an accessory was anything not needed to use the gun as a gun, ie fire a bullet. The court agreed, and agreed that there was no tax due on the price difference between the Std. model and Deluxe model. I believe Auto-Ord dropped the Std. Model soon after this case came out... In any case, the case can give you an idea of how the firearms excise tax works.
Bagdonas v. Department of Treasury, 93 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 1996)
In this case a guy who was a felon, having been convicted of selling a rifle equipped with a silencer made out of a lawn mower mufffler to a ATF agent, asks ATF to remove his firearms disability. ATF refuses; but refuses to give any reasons. He sues. While court expresses its disgust at ATF's refusal to give its reasons; when ATF does cough up post-hoc reasons, the court finds that the law gives them so much discretion that their reasons are good enough to uphold their determination. The court also suggests that ATF actually comply with the law and the constitution, and give its reasons, the fact that they got away with it here suggests they won't. The cutoff of funds for such investigations was not a factor in this case, apparently because the investigation that led ATF to turn Bagdonas down was completed before the cut-off, and he was appealing from a refusal to reconsider that decision, not from a refusal to investigate at all. While this case deals with the firearms disability issue, it is instructive as to ATF's action on all administrative issues, that are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Ballew v. U.S., 389 F. Supp. 47 (D. Md. 1975)
This is a civil suit against the government by Kenyon Ballew, a guy who was raided by the ATF in 1971, in Maryland for having unregistered grenades, and was shot when he brandished a pistol at the invading officers. The court totally rejects his claims, saying they were his own fault, the search warrant was fine, and that he did in fact possess unregistered grenades (although he apparently was never prosecuted) by having dummy casings, black and smokeless powder, and fuzes from smoke grenades. This case was alluded to by Doug Oefinger in his interview in MGN a while back. The NRA also points to this incident on occasion as an example of ATF excess and BS.
Benjamin v. B.A.T.F., 771 F.Supp. 307 (D.Ore. 1991)
In this case the court upholds ATF's revocation of Benjamin's FFL, for refusing to permit agents to conduct a compliance inspection of the licensed premises. Benjamin's licensed premises were a garage adjacent to his parent's house. The agents requested to see the inside of the house, which Benjamin's mom refused. The agents never asked to see the garage - they asked to see the "licensed premises", then indicated the house. The court decided that even though the agents asked to see a place they were not permitted to go, he would construe the request to see the "licensed premises" to mean the garage, even though that was not what the agent nor Benjamin, nor his mom indicated in testimony they understood the agent to mean, and thus uphold the revocation.
Bennet v. Cincinnati Checker Cab Co., Inc. 353 F.Supp. 1206 (E.D. Ky. 1973)
In this case a woman shot by the driver of a taxi cab she took home from work sued the cab company and the importer of the pistol used by the assailant. In this decision the court rejects her contention that the importer of the handgun is responsible for its use in the crime, and rejects her argument that the gun was sold in violation of the Gun Control Act, noting that it was sold to the Kentucky dealer that sold it to the driver before the GCA was enacted.
Bieder v. United States, 662 A.2d 185 (D.C. App. 1995)
Bieder was a guy with a NY CCW permit. He was visiting our Nation's Kapitol, and at security at the Kapitol Building he gave the guard his fanny pack and handgun, telling him he had a NYC permit. He was prosecuted for: Having an unregistered gun in D.C.; having unregistered ammunition in D.C.; and carrying a firearm concealed. His defense, in part, was that he was moving the gun through D.C. (in his trunk and unloaded at that time) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. sec 926A, the preemption of local bans while traveling part of the FOPA. The trial court declined to let him present that defense, and he appealed. The appeals court reversed, and agreed that as the law did allow him to carry his gun through D.C. under those circumstances, he should have been able to assert it. I haven't found too many cases construing that section, and some folks are nervous it won't be applied the way it reads. This court did, and also seemed to apply it to the ammo, although that is not expressly covered. BTW, Bieder had a different defense for the time he had the gun in the fanny pack, loaded. It wasn't real persuasive to me though. Clearly a guy who was so used to going armed he forgot he shouldn't outside NY.

07-04-2006, 8:39 PM
Here are another batch of gun court cases U thru Z