### 1996 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d
S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-27-1996 

# Unit ed S t at es v

. R y b a r

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ocke t 95-3185

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a
U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1996 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a
U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U nit e d S t a t e s v

. R y b a r " (1996). 1996 D e cisio n s

. P ape r 19. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996/19Filed 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 Distr ict Judge for the Easter District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designa tion.OPINION OF THE COURT

SLOVITER, Chief Judge.

Appellant Raymond Rybar, Jr. was convicted followin g a conditional guilty plea to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which makes it "unlawful for any person t o transfer or possess a machinegun." On appeal, he ar gues that the district court erred in rejecting his chal lenge to that provision as beyond Congress' commerce power a nd as violating the Second Amendment. Neither challenge i s persuasive. Every court of appeals that has conside red 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); Unit ed 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. 199 5); United States v. Pearson, 8 F.3d 631 (8th Cir. 1993 ), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2132 (1994). Nor has Rybar prese nted 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 firea rms dealer, attended a gun show in Monroeville, Pennsyl vania, and had in his possession a Chinese Type 54, 7.62- millimeter submachine gun, serial number 2052272, w hich 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 cali ber submachine gun, serial number 216831, which he offe red

___________________________________________________ ______________

1. On March 5, 1996, the Fifth Circuit granted a re hearing en banc. See United States v. Kirk, 78 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1996).

2to sell to Baublitz, who paid him for it and to who m he

transferred possession.

A grand jury indicted Rybar on two counts of unlawf ul possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S. C. § 922(o)(1) (Counts I and III), and two counts of u nlawful transfer of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(e) (Counts II and IV). Rybar moved to dismis s the indictment on the ground that both statutes were unconstitutional. While the motion was pending, the court