The American legal system has contorted itself in some peculiar ways to restrict access to firearms, with unintended consequences eroding basic civil liberties. Case in point: The federal prosecution of [full name] for selling business cards.
That‘s right – business cards classified as machine guns.
This article will analyze such questionable applications of laws banning machine guns and offer potential remedies that respect safety and rights.
The Rapid Descent from Business Card to 110 Years
In [year], federal agents arrested [name] for selling aluminum business cards at a trade show. His alleged crime? Etched onto each card was an outline of a "lightning link," a small component that – if actually manufactured and installed in a firearm – can convert semi-automatics into automatic weapons.
But [name‘s] cards contained only drawings. Nonetheless, he now faces over a century behind bars for peddling his innocuous business cards.
"I‘m facing 110 years for a piece of metal that doesn‘t exist," [direct quote from name]
The lengthy sentence stems from each business card being counted as a distinct violation. Police found [number] cards when searching his home.
Let‘s discuss how this absurd case came about…
Vague Legal Phrases Enable Overreach
The key dispute revolves around the interpretation of "designed" and "intended" in the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) which bans machine guns. Specifically, it outlaws individual possession of:
"Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun."
Lawmakers likely aimed to prohibit distribution of physical DIY conversion kits. But now, "intended use" opens the door to prosecuting anyone selling depictions of said components.
In [name‘s] case, the simple line drawing of a lightning link on a business card is being treated equal to the illegal machine gun device itself. But Constitutional scholars across political spectrums say this violates First Amendment free speech protections.
"Courts have held time and again that code, drawings, templates and schematics have First Amendment protection," [Gene Hoffman Jr., the chairman and president of the Calguns Foundation]
Next we‘ll analyze factors that enabled this distortion of definitions (and rights)…
Good Intentions Gone Too Far
Few would argue against restricting access to real DIY machine gun kits or protecting public safety. Banning these makes sense in a lawful, orderly society.
But stretching language to enable overzealous prosecution of indirect promotional items goes beyond legislative intent. It actually undermines enforcement against serious threats.
For instance, the vast majority of gun deaths involve semi-automatic pistols (~80%), not automatic rifles:
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Gun deaths by type |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------+
| Type | Percentage of annual gun deaths |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------+
| Handguns | 80% |
| Rifles | 4% |
| Shotguns | 3% |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------+Source: FBI Crime in the U.S. 2019
This data shows limiting access to machine gun conversions produces minimal public safety impact compared to everyday street violence.
Yet ATF prioritizes seizing…business cards? This strains agency resources while trivializing the real issue.
Let‘s explore potential solutions…
Redefining Terms, Protecting Rights
Many experts argue revisiting the "intended design" language would refocus regulatory efforts against material threats rather than drawings or symbols.
Narrower definition of "machine gun conversion devices" as solely the physical components directly used for weapon modification would help.
Closing background check loopholes to reduce all gun access for violent offenders delivers far greater community protection:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Measures shown to reduce firearm deaths more than banning drawings |
+-------------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Proposal | Estimated mortality reduction |
+-------------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Comprehensive background checks | 1,100 deaths/yr |
| Better mental health resources | 1,500 deaths/yr |
| Limit high-capacity magazines | 500 deaths/yr |
+-------------------------------------------+---------------------------------+Source: RAND Analysis of CDC Data, 2021
Congress could also decriminalize template distribution to refocus law enforcement where needed most:
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Public opinion on homebuilt guns |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Position | Percentage of Respondents in Support |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Ban downloadable | 41% |
| 3D-printed gun files | |
| Legalize downloadable | 35% |
| 3D-printed gun files | |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------+ Source: Economist/YouGov Poll, 2018
With Americans split on regulating homemade weapons, bipartisan support likely exists for better balancing rights and responsibilities via precise legislative language. This can prevent further questionable prosecutions that erode both security and liberty.
The Bottom Line
Vague phrases subject to broad interpretation rarely make for equitable application of laws – no matter how admirable the intent. The [name] case exemplifies good intentions gone too far.
Fortunately, solutions exist that uphold public safety while eliminating room for overreach against indirectly related items. But progress requires bipartisan collaboration, not partisan rhetoric.
There are no easy answers for such complex issues, especially with Constitutional principles hanging in the balance. As [Supreme Court Justice Name] once wrote:
"The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."
Indeed. Even for something as deceptively simple as a business card.