No. 20-6249
Thomas F. Kuzma v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 2nd-amendment administrative-law criminal-law criminal-penalties due-process federal-statute firearms machinegun-definition statutory-interpretation vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-12-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the definition of a machinegun in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) void for vagueness as applied here to a receiver (frame for a firearm) used to make a shop tool designed to test legal automatic bolts?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is the definition of a machinegun in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) void for vagueness as applied here to a receiver (frame for a firearm) used to make a shop tool designed to test legal automatic bolts? 2. Who interprets an ambiguous section of a federal statute that results in a criminal conviction and penalties, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or the courts? i
Docket Entries
2020-12-07
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-11-12
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-10-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 7, 2020)
Attorneys
Thomas Kuzma
Rosemary Ann Gordon — Law Office of Rosemary Gordon Panuco, Petitioner
Rosemary Ann Gordon — Law Office of Rosemary Gordon Panuco, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent