United States v. Rybar ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    1996 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    12-27-1996
    United States v. Rybar
    Precedential or Non-Precedential:
    Docket 95-3185
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996
    Recommended Citation
    "United States v. Rybar" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 19.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/19
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    Filed December 30, 1996
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 95-3185
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    RAYMOND RYBAR, JR.,
    Appellant
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Crim. No. 94-cr-00243)
    Argued September 13, 1995
    Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, and ALITO,
    Circuit Judge, and RENDELL, District Judge *
    (Opinion filed December 30, 1996)
    James H. Jeffries, III (Argued)
    Greensboro, NC 27408
    Attorney for Appellant
    Bonnie R. Schlueter
    Mary Beth Buchanan (Argued)
    Office of United States Attorney
    Pittsburgh, PA 15219
    Attorneys for Appellee
    _________________________________________________________________
    *Honorable Marjorie O. Rendell, United States District Judge for the
    Easter District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    SLOVITER, Chief Judge.
    Appellant Raymond Rybar, Jr. was convicted following a
    conditional guilty plea to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C.
    § 922(o), which makes it "unlawful for any person to
    transfer or possess a machinegun." On appeal, he argues
    that the district court erred in rejecting his challenge to
    that provision as beyond Congress' commerce power and as
    violating the Second Amendment. Neither challenge is
    persuasive. Every court of appeals that has considered a
    challenge to § 922(o) under the Commerce Clause has
    upheld the constitutionality of the provision. See United
    States v. Beuckelaere, 
    91 F.3d 781
    (6th Cir. 1996); United
    States v. Kenney, 
    91 F.3d 884
    (7th Cir. 1996); United States
    v. Rambo, 
    74 F.3d 948
    (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    117 S. Ct. 72
    (1996); United States v. Kirk, 
    70 F.3d 791
    (5th Cir. 1995)1;
    United States v. Wilks, 
    58 F.3d 1518
    (10th Cir. 1995);
    United States v. Pearson, 
    8 F.3d 631
    (8th Cir. 1993), cert.
    denied, 
    114 S. Ct. 2132
    (1994). Nor has Rybar presented
    any authority in support of his Second Amendment
    argument. We examine each claim in turn.
    I.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    On April 4, 1992, Rybar, a federally licensed firearms
    dealer, attended a gun show in Monroeville, Pennsylvania,
    and had in his possession a Chinese Type 54, 7.62-
    millimeter submachine gun, serial number 2052272, which
    he offered to sell to Thomas Baublitz, who paid him and to
    whom he transferred possession. The next day, April 5,
    1992, Rybar again visited the Monroeville gun show, this
    time in possession of a U.S. Military M-3, .45 caliber
    submachine gun, serial number 216831, which he offered
    _________________________________________________________________
    1. On March 5, 1996, the Fifth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc. See
    United States v. Kirk, 
    78 F.3d 160
    (5th Cir. 1996).
    2
    to sell to Baublitz, who paid him for it and to whom he
    transferred possession.
    A grand jury indicted Rybar on two counts of unlawful
    possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    § 922(o)(1) (Counts I and III), and two counts of unlawful
    transfer of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C.
    § 5861(e) (Counts II and IV). Rybar moved to dismiss the
    indictment on the ground that both statutes were
    unconstitutional. While the motion was pending, the court