Federal District Court rules 2nd Amendment is protected liberty interest under 5th

Bartholomew Roberts · January 13, 2009, 04:51 PM

A magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York has found 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) unconstitutional. This law requires that someone who is charged with possession of child pornography be required to surrender all firearms without any hearing in order to be eligible for bail.

The judge ruled that as a fundamental liberty interest, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms cannot be removed without due process, which means a defendant must receive a hearing before he can be deprived of his right to bear arms during the trial.

You can read more about U. S. vs. Arzberger at the Volokh Conspiracy (and there are quite a few tidbits of recent analysis on Heller in addition to this particular story as well).

Fremmer · January 13, 2009, 04:58 PM

Wow, cool Thread, Bart. I'll have to check out the links later. Thanks for posting them!

Gary L. Griffiths · January 13, 2009, 08:52 PM

As always, Bartholomew Roberts posts some great material.

A quick reading of Arzberger seems to indicate that the Lautenberg Amendment may be on the short road to the dustbin of history.

Wildalaska · January 13, 2009, 10:39 PM

Its a ruling from a magistrate and has no precendential effect...but interesting

WildbutwhatwillthedistrictcourtsayAlaska TM

johnwilliamson062 · January 13, 2009, 11:32 PM

Wild is right, but as always, lawyers can still cite it.

Al Norris · January 14, 2009, 12:06 AM

Violation of Due Process... It may only be a magistrate court. But big things are built from small starts.

January 13, 2009, 04:51 PM	#1
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Federal District Court rules 2nd Amendment is protected liberty interest under 5th A magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York has found 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) unconstitutional. This law requires that someone who is charged with possession of child pornography be required to surrender all firearms without any hearing in order to be eligible for bail. The judge ruled that as a fundamental liberty interest, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms cannot be removed without due process, which means a defendant must receive a hearing before he can be deprived of his right to bear arms during the trial. You can read more about U. S. vs. Arzberger at the Volokh Conspiracy (and there are quite a few tidbits of recent analysis on Heller in addition to this particular story as well).

January 13, 2009, 08:52 PM	#3
Gary L. Griffiths Senior Member Join Date: April 7, 2000 Location: AZ, WA Posts: 1,466	As always, Bartholomew Roberts posts some great material. A quick reading of Arzberger seems to indicate that the Lautenberg Amendment may be on the short road to the dustbin of history. __________________ Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)

January 13, 2009, 04:58 PM	#2
Fremmer Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2005 Location: Nebraska Posts: 3,482	Wow, cool Thread, Bart. I'll have to check out the links later. Thanks for posting them!

January 13, 2009, 10:39 PM	#4
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Its a ruling from a magistrate and has no precendential effect...but interesting WildbutwhatwillthedistrictcourtsayAlaska TM

January 13, 2009, 11:32 PM	#5
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	Wild is right, but as always, lawyers can still cite it.

January 14, 2009, 12:06 AM	#6
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Violation of Due Process... It may only be a magistrate court. But big things are built from small starts.