18 U.S.C. § 928
Separability
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter and the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1954–2016 · leading case: United States v. Oliver King, 735 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Oliver King, 735 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013). “Not everyone can obtain a federal firearms license; applicants must satisfy the myriad requirements set forth in complex statutory provisions and dense federal regulations. See generally 18 'U.S.C. § 923 (licensing requirements); 27 C.”
Nat'l Shooting Sports Found., Inc. v. Melson, 840 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D.D.C. 2012). “*313 18 U.S.C. § 928 (g)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 599A; 28 C.”
Willingham Sports, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (S.D. Ala. 2004). “Judicial review of the ATF’s determination is governed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, including specifically 18 U.S.C. § 928 (f). A. Licensure of Plaintiff and Record-keeping Requirements.”
Borchardt Rifle Corp. v. Cook, 684 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2012). “Plain indifference toward known legal obligations meets the willfulness requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 928 (e), and this plain indifference may be shown with circumstantial evidence.”
United States v. Chet Govan, 152 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1998). “Two counts of forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 928 (a)(1) were also alleged.”
Larry Garner v. Marcia Lambert, 345 F. App'x 66 (6th Cir. 2009). “See 18 U.S.C. § 928 . In accordance with the GCA and the applicable regulations, Garner was also subject to regular compliance inspections of his premises.”
Printz v. United States, 854 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Mont. 1994). “That clause is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 928 , and reads, If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid the remainder of the chapter and the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to…”
McGee v. United States, 863 F. Supp. 321 (S.D. Miss. 1994). “But it does not follow that Congress would not have enacted the balance of the Act without mandating that CLEO’s make “a reasonable effort” to ascertain the legality of proposed handgun purchases.”
Armaline, Inc. v. Lambert, 512 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D. Ohio 2007). “See 18 U.S.C. § 928 (e) (Thomson/West 2007); Appalachian Resources Development Corporation v.”
MacK v. United States, 856 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Ariz. 1994). “The Gun Control Act, of which the Brady Act is a part, does in fact contain a severability clause.”
Frank v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 1030 (D. Vt. 1994). “18 U.S.C. § 928 . It is not evident to the Court that this presumption of severability has been overcome by the Plaintiff.”
White v. Reid, 126 F. Supp. 867 (D.D.C. 1954). “For some reason this section, codified as 18 U.S.C. § 928 (1946 Ed.), was omitted when Title 18 was recodified in 1948.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.