The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 11, 2011, 11:17 PM   #1
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
9th Circuit: U.S. v Sanchez

U.S. v Sanchez (May 5, 2011)

That's an interesting decision and only 11 pages!

Sanchez was originally convicted of domestic violence under AZ law. Later, he was picked up carrying a firearm and ammo, in conflict with the the Lautenberg act. Maybe.

AAR, he was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on violation of §922(g)(9) (possession of a firearm by being convicted of a MCDV). In pretrial motions, Sanchez argued that the underlying crime lacked “as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon” against the supposed victim.

Five days later, the Feds filed a superseding indictment on violating §922(g)(8) (receiving a firearm while under a RO). He was convicted on that count. The Government argued that possession of the firearm is the same as receiving a firearm.

Sanchez appealed.

Oh, Sanchez is not out of the woods yet, as the feds can re-indict under the (apparently) weaker violation he was originally charged with. We won't know how weak (if at all, but that is a good presumption) the former indictment is, until the Feds try Sanchez on it (and I suspect they will).

One thing you can bet, is that courts in the 9th Circuit will now be a lot more explicit when issuing an RO/TRO.

The panel said that this is a case of first impression, meaning that this has not come up in the Circuit before. They cite 3 other Circuit cases (1st - 2006; 4th - 1999; and 11th - 2010) that have held the same thing the 9th has now held: The RO must be explicit in satisfying the underlying verbiage of §922(g)(8).

As the Court wrote:

Quote:
No court, however, has found that a court order barring “no contact”—but containing no explicit prohibitions on physical force, abuse, or harm—satisfies (8)(C)(ii).
The Circuit panel reversed and remanded with orders to vacate the indictment.

As criminal cases go, this merely sets the stage for chipping away at Lautenberg.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 12, 2011, 06:28 AM   #2
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
Thanks for keeping us posted on these, Al Norris.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 12, 2011, 09:26 PM   #3
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Thanks for keeping us posted on these, Al Norris.
I second that.
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.
Standing Wolf is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 12:00 PM   #4
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
What a novel concept -- asking a court to rule that the law requires what the law requires, rather than what the state wishes the law requires.

There may yet be a glimmer of hope that we remain a nation of laws.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 03:20 PM   #5
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
Thanks for the update. I have real problems with the Lautenberg Act. While one can make the argument a temporary suspension of the 2A rights might be justified, a permanent life-time ban is complete B.S. This opinion at least makes doing so a bit more difficult.
KyJim is offline  
Reply

Tags
domestic violence , lautenberg , mcdv , misdemeanor charge , possession

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.05350 seconds with 10 queries