Yellow Bullet Forums banner

21 - 40 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
Agreed. The reason I’m trying to keep track of these is because of Kennedy being gone and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh now being there. It take 4 justices to “grant cert” or agree to accept a case for review before the SCOTUS. Prior to this, they could not get 4 justices to agree on almost any 2A case since Heller. Some say it was deliberate because the conservative justices couldn’t count on Kennedy, others say there was just lack of will to tackle a controversial issue. Regardless, there are plenty of cases and lower court splits, enough that the SCOTUS should be making some 2A decisions soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Looks like NY is trying to keep their case out of the courts by offering to change the rules. Hopefully the 2A folks tell em to pound sand and power on to SCOTUS. Seems like NY is scurred :p:p

NJ wise, Rogers vs. Grewal, SCOTUS took no action on the challenge, so not good or bad news, just more time slip
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #23 (Edited)
Gamble v. United States. I hadn’t listed this one above but they just issued a decision on it.

“Petitioner Gamble pleaded guilty to a charge of violating Alabama’s felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute. Federal prosecutors then indicted him for the same instance of possession under federal law. Gamble moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal indictment was for “the same offence” as the one at issue in his state conviction, thus exposing him to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment. The District Court denied this motion, invoking the dual-sovereignty doctrine, according to which two offenses “are not the ‘same offence’ ” for double jeopardy purposes if “prosecuted by different sovereigns,” Heath v. Alabama, 474 U. S. 82, 92. Gamble pleaded guilty to the federal offense but appealed on double jeopardy grounds. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Held:This Court declines to overturn the longstanding dual- sovereignty doctrine. Pp. 3–31.
(a) The dual-sovereignty doctrine is not an exception to the double jeopardy right but follows from the Fifth Amendment’s text. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being “twice put in jeopardy” “for the same offence.” As originally understood, an “offence” is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign. Thus, where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws and two “offences.”“
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #24 (Edited)
Adding Kisor vs. Wilkie from the other thread to concentrate things into this one thread.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/18-15_3314.pdf
So, it looks as if the SCOTUS basically punted this down the road. They declined to overrule it but warned that doesn’t mean it applies in every case.

“....Justice Neil Gorsuch, who complained that today’s ruling had left the doctrine a “paper tiger” and warned that the court would almost certainly have to address the issue again soon.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-justices-leave-agency-deference-doctrine-in-place/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-15_9p6b.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #25 (Edited)
This case is being heard today.

Rehaif v. United States

“When the federal government prosecutes someone not legally in the United States for possessing a firearm, must the government prove that the person actually knew he was not legally in the country? Or need the government merely prove that the person knew he possessed the firearm? The U.S. Supreme Court will puzzle over this classic, yet novel, statutory question of “mens rea,” or criminal intent, when it hears argument on April 23 in Rehaif v. United States.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/argument-preview-must-an-unauthorized-immigrant-in-possession-of-a-firearm-know-he-is-in-the-country-illegally/
This looks like it could get messy.

https://reason.com/2019/01/15/many-foreign-tourists-and-most-foreign-s/

A scenario, depending on how this works out....

“Come from England or Japan for a short visit? Feel free to shoot at a range! Return on a student visa? Federal felony for you (and friends who take you) if you go shooting. Unless, of course, you've gotten a hunting license -- even if the range visit is completely unrelated to the hunting.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #26

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
Pena, Rogers, Mance and Gould are still being held by the SCOTUS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
Spell check got me again, Cheeseman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #33 (Edited)
It appears (fingers crossed) that the SCOTUS might finally be ready to wade into the gun rights issue in a big way. As of this week, the high court has the following cases stacked up in a hold.

Rogers / Gould / Cheeseman / Young (all "bear"); Mance ("interstate sales"), and Pena ("roster") and now the Worman case (MA assault weapon ban)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
It appears (fingers crossed) that the SCOTUS might finally be ready to wade into the gun rights issue in a big way. As of this week, the high court has the following cases stacked up in a hold.

Rogers / Gould / Cheeseman / Young (all "bear"); Mance ("interstate sales"), and Pena ("roster") and now the Worman case (MA assault weapon ban)
Yes, things are looking hopeful indeed.

Now, we wait another decade or so. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #35
Yes, things are looking hopeful indeed.

Now, we wait another decade or so. :rolleyes:
Yeah, sad to say this is the most progress we’ve seen since the Heller and McDonald decisions and nothing’s even happened yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,557 Posts
Stuff has happened.

We did lose the CLEO signoff on NFA items.

They did ban bumpstocks though. I know, no one cares but even the ATF admits they had no legal authority to do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
Stuff has happened.

We did lose the CLEO signoff on NFA items.

They did ban bumpstocks though. I know, no one cares but even the ATF admits they had no legal authority to do it.
Yep and the worst, IMO, are these red Flag/ERPO laws. No cases about them yet that I know. But what I was meaning when I said nothing’s even happened yet is that the court has done nothing yet, just put a bunch of them on hold, and that’s about the most hopeful thing we’ve seen in a long time; sad deal for us.

Relief must come from the SCOTUS though because this is a fundamental rights issue clearly stated in the U.S. constitution and it will need to be rammed down the throats of some states, like Maryland, before anything will change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
But wasn't there already a case that made clear that we were only allowed to own weapons with a military application? Something about not allowing "trench guns"? Shouldn't that there shit on all these "assault weapon" bans?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
But wasn't there already a case that made clear that we were only allowed to own weapons with a military application? Something about not allowing "trench guns"? Shouldn't that there shit on all these "assault weapon" bans?
Yeah, I think you mean the Miller case. It was a kind of weird case (because they apparently did not know about the common use of such shotguns in warfare) but it’s clear that the SCOTUS was relying on a weapon’s suitability for the citizen militia as a criteria for protection by the second amendment.

“The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
 
21 - 40 of 58 Posts
Top