re constitutionality of u s c o in article apr atlastele com brians atlastele com brian sheets writes you know i was reading u s c and something just did not make sence and i was wondering if someone could help me out say u s c except as provided in paragraph it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun well i got to looking in my law dictionary and i found that a person might also be an artificial entity that is created by government and has no rights under the federal constitution so what i don t understand is how a statute like can be enforced on an individual so someone tell me how my government can tell me what i can or cannot possess just passing a law does not make it law sorry but i really can t figure out what you re trying to say above everyone knows that laws are constitional until it goes to court not exactly an unconstitutional act is not law it confers no rights it imposes no duties affords no protection it creates no office it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed norton vs shelby county us p the general rule is that an unconstitutional statute though having the form and name of law is in reality no law but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it no on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it am jur d sec late d sec so has it ever gone to court not just your run of the mill ok i had it i am guilty put me in jail has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told by the supreme court that they didn t have that right automatic weapons no the supreme court has never heard such a case cdt rocket sw stratus com if you believe that i speak for my company or cdt vos stratus com write today for my special investors packet
