"Nick Hull" wrote in message
...
It follows that if homebuilt machine guns are legal so are homebuilt
silencers.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Be careful. A close reading of the ruling shows why the man in question was
exempt from application of 922 (o) - oddly, that he was already a felon.
This meant that his home manufacture of machineguns did not reduce the
demand for machineguns, because "As a convicted felon, Stewart would have
been highly unlikely to obtain federal license authorizing him to purchase a
machinegun in the heavily regulated market for such commodities." (page 11)

Had he not been a felon already, his manufacture of machineguns would have
by the same reasoning *might* have "reduced the demand" for machineguns in
interstate commerce and thus fallen into the purview of 922(o). For an
example statute, see Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111. This conclusion is
not as clear cut as the one above.

As I am not an attorney this should be taken as only my best guess.

Also note that Stewart did *not* get off, as the court affirmed his
conviction for felony possession of a firearm.

StaticsJason