No. 19-6220

Nerses Nick Bronsozian v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-10-09
Status: GVR
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: 2nd-amendment commerce-clause constitutional-interpretation criminal-prosecution due-process firearms firearms-regulation national-firearms-act registration statutory-construction taxation taxation-power
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-04-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does Congress's power to tax give it the power to punish the possession of unregistered machineguns under § 5861(d) of the NFA, even though it is impossible to register and pay tax on those machineguns, the law generates no revenue, and the only enforcement mechanism is prosecution?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED When the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) was passed in 1934, the sole constitutional authority for the law was Congress’s power to tax under U.S. Const. Article I, § 8, cl. 1. Congress recognized that it did not have the power to ban disfavored firearms outright. So instead, it passed a law that required certain “noxious” firearms, including machineguns, be registered and taxed. See 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Fifty-two years later, however, Congress passed the Firearms Owner Protection Act (““FOPA”). Enacted under Congress’s newly expanded Commerce Clause power, the FOPA banned the possession of all previously unregistered machineguns. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(0). Since the passage of § 922(0), the government has steadfastly refused to register or tax the possession of previously unregistered machineguns under the NFA. But, it continues to prosecute and imprison individuals for failing to register those machineguns. Does Congress’s power to tax give it the power to punish the possession of unregistered machineguns under § 5861(d) of the NFA, even though it is impossible to register and pay tax on those machineguns, the law generates no revenue, and the only enforcement mechanism is prosecution? i

Docket Entries

2020-05-22
JUDGMENT ISSUED
2020-04-20
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of the pending application to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment.
2020-03-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-09
Brief of respondent United States of America filed.
2020-02-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 9, 2020.
2020-02-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 7, 2020 to March 9, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-01-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 7, 2020.
2020-01-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 8, 2020 to February 7, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-12-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 8, 2020.
2019-12-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2019 to January 8, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-11-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 9, 2019.
2019-10-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 8, 2019 to December 9, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-10-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 8, 2019)

Attorneys

Nerses Bronsozian
John Lewis LittrellBienert | Katzman PC, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent