| 词条 | United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=United States, Petitioner v. Thompson-Center Arms Company |ArgueDate=January 13 |ArgueYear=1992 |DecideDate=June 8 |DecideYear=1992 |FullName=United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company |USVol=504 |USPage=505 |ParallelCitations=112 S. Ct. 2102; 119 L. Ed. 2d 308; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3391; 60 U.S.L.W. 4480; 69 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1493; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4793; 92 Daily Journal DAR 7605; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 346 |Prior=On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |Subsequent= |Holding=The Court held that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short barreled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16-inch barrel. |SCOTUS=1991-1993 |Plurality=Souter |JoinPlurality=Rehnquist, O'Connor |Concurrence=Scalia |JoinConcurrence=Thomas |Dissent=White |JoinDissent=Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy |Dissent2=Stevens |LawsApplied=National Firearms Act }} United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992),{{ref|citation}} was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. BackgroundThe legal dispute in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company arose when officials from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms contacted Thompson Center Arms informing them that the kit of the Contender Pistol that included a stock and a {{convert|16|in|adj=on}} barrel constituted a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act. ArgumentsThe US Government's argument centered on the analogy of a disassembled bicycle still being a bicycle. Stephen Halbrook argued on behalf of Thompson Center Arms and stated that the weapon would have to be assembled with both the stock and the {{convert|10|in|adj=on}} barrel attached for it to be a short-barreled rifle. DecisionThe court ruled in Thompson Center Arms' favor in that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short-barreled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16-inch barrel. Justice Scalia also noted that there is a warning carved on the stock telling the user to not attach the stock to the receiver when the 10-inch barrel is attached to the receiver or vice versa. This circumstance caused the court to apply the rule of lenity since the NFA carries criminal penalties with it. This meant that ambiguous statutes are interpreted against the government. See also
External links
| case = United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co., {{ussc|504|505|1992|el=no}} | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0164.ZS.html | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/505/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep504/usrep504505/usrep504505.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-164
4 : United States Second Amendment case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court|1992 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。