KONTOS

v.

CREAMER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Ross, 458 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1972)
  …f reasonable intelligence be forewarned what is prohibited. United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32-33, 83 S.Ct. 594, 9 L.Ed.2d 561, 565-566 (1963); United States v. Campbell, 427 F. 2d 892, 893 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 975, 91 S.Ct. 1673, 29 L.Ed.2d 140 (1971). Section 5845(f) itself contains the crucial limitation that a destructive device does not include any device not designed or redesigned for use as a weapon. A Molotov cocktail has no use other than as a weapon…
• United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976)
  …a number of distinct offenses, and one may not attack his conviction of one of the offenses by questioning the constitutionality of provisions relating to another offense. See United States v. Black, 431 F. 2d 524, 530 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 975, 91 S.Ct. 1673, 29 L.Ed.2d 140 (1971). The district court properly declined to consider Warin’s due process arguments as a maker of firearms. We also agree with the disposition by the district court of defendant’s contention that the statute under…
• United States v. Aiken, 974 F.2d 446 (4th Cir. 1992)
  …limit on statute). By not allowing transferees to register the guns, and thus prohibiting lawful acceptance of unregistered guns, Congress has made the guns contraband.3 See United States v. Black, 431 F. 2d 524, 528 (6th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 975, 91 S.Ct. 1673, 29 L.Ed.2d 140 (1971). For this reason, if makers do not register the weapons originally, they face the possibility of being unable to sell the guns to anyone. This fact makes it more likely that makers will pay the tax in the firs…