|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 15, 2009, 12:26 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
Sometimes being bullet-proof is not a good idea
In United States v. Alderman, a May 12 opinion by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court considered whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, art. I, § 8, cl. 3, to criminalize the possession by a felon of body armor that has been “sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 931 and 921(a)(35). Put another way, the issue was whether the sale of body armor in interstate commerce creates a sufficient nexus between possession of the body armor and commerce to allow for federal regulation under Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has significantly altered the landscape of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (striking down statute that provided a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (striking down federal statute regulating possession of guns in school zones). Nonetheless, the court said tha the resolution to this case is found in Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent that addresses a jurisdictional element nearly identical to the one that applies to § 931. See Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575, 577 (1977) (concluding that, in the context of Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control Act, proof that a firearm traveled in interstate commerce satisfies the required nexus between possession of the firearm and commerce); United States v. Cortes, 299 F.3d 1030, 1037 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding carjacking statute and stating that “the vitality of Scarbourough engenders significant debate,” but “[u]ntil the Supreme Court tells us otherwise… we follow Scarborough unwaveringly.”). The Ninth Circuit concluded that it was bound by this precedent — absent the Supreme Court or the entire court sitting en banc saying otherwise — and that the felon-in-possession of body armor statute passes muster. Cedrick Alderman was arrested in 2005 during a sting operation involving an attempted controlled purchase of cocaine. Alderman had been previously convicted of felony robbery. The arresting officer discovered that Alderman was wearing a bullet-proof vest. Alderman was booked for possession of the vest and for violating the conditions of his supervision. Because Washington state law does not criminalize felon possession of body armor, the matter was referred to the federal authorities. Alderman was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 931(a), which makes it unlawful for a person convicted of a felony involving a “crime of violence” to possess body armor. See James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act of 2002, § 11009(e)(2)(A), 18 U.S.C. § 931 (criminalizing the possession of body armor by felons as of Nov. 2, 2002). It was clear that the body armor possessed by Alderman had previously been sold in interstate commerce and that he was a felon in possession of it. The only question was whether Congress could criminalize his possession of body armor. The court determined that Lopez case did not overrule Scarborough. It noted that it had a situation where a nearly identical jurisdictional hook had been blessed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it did not engage in careful parsing of post-Lopez case law that would otherwise be required. Rather, it said that “[u]ntil the Supreme Court tells us otherwise… we [must] follow Scarborough unwaveringly.” Thus, Alderman could be punished by Congress for being a felon in possession of body armor. As you may recall, in Lopez, the statute that the Supreme Court considered did not have an express "jurisdictional hook" that the firearm have traveled in interstate commerce; subsequent to Lopez's conviction, the statute was amended so to provide. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the amended statute. Therefore one should expect the federal courts to uphold convictions under the federal gun-free school zone law until the Supreme Court addresses the issue whether the jurisdictional hook here (and in the amended federal gun-free school zone law) is sufficient. By the way, there was a dissent, which I think was better reasoned. Last edited by Ricky B; May 15, 2009 at 12:40 AM. |
May 15, 2009, 05:18 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
What's your point?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
May 15, 2009, 02:44 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 425
|
Some states make it a crime to use or wear body armor while in commision of a violent crime. Suppose the idea is that the body armor become another tool used by the criminal to help him commit the crime and it gives prosecutors another charge to pile on.
This sounds a little different. Just the mear possesion being a crime. So congress can dictate what kind of clothing a convicted felon can wear mearly because such article was once involved in interstate commerce. This really should be looked at under the light of US v Lopez. |
May 15, 2009, 04:57 PM | #4 |
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: March 9, 2000
Location: Virden, IL
Posts: 5,917
|
A felon named Alderman?
Guy from Chicago, by any chance?
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner |
May 15, 2009, 06:21 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 5,210
|
Quote:
He was arrested in Washington State. |
|
May 16, 2009, 04:17 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
|
That was, I'm fairly certain, a fine example of dry humor.
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective |
May 16, 2009, 04:52 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
Wait a minute.....
What's next what kind of shoes can I wear? No... this is BS.
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W |
May 16, 2009, 05:03 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
!
Some folks live in places where this wouldn't be a bad idea. I don't, thank the Lord. I also probably won't be walking around with a helmet but if I want to I want to be able to.
The federal government already takes 35% of my fri..n! wages, the state another pile, and the locals charge for everything short of a drink of water!!!!!!! He!! no they won't tell me how to dress! My goodness! When is it gonna stop?? I wouldn't even know how to put on body armor BUT if I want to I should be able to even if I have have a few gallons of shine, growed a little pot, or some other minor thing that makes me a felon. You can be a felon for lots of reasons. Some of them have nothing to do with any kind of violence. Sheeeesh!
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W |
May 16, 2009, 06:17 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Posts: 127
|
In FL, wearing body armor during the commision of a felony is an enhancement to the original charge (F-3 to F-2, F-2 to an F-1 and so on).
|
May 17, 2009, 07:25 AM | #10 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
Scalia, concurring in Raich: Quote:
|
||
May 17, 2009, 11:10 AM | #11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
There's the rub
Quote:
Maybe Scalia would agree with me: Quote:
Last edited by Ricky B; May 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM. |
||
May 17, 2009, 06:12 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
|
I think for the most part, prohibiting violent felons from possessing body armor is a good idea. The reason being, as a violent felon, one has already proved their criminal penchant. Thus, much like how violent felons cannot purchase guns, neither can they purchase body armor.
I certainly would not want a burglar coming in to my home with body armor. Would you? I'm all for compact federalism. However, as most of us know, the Commerce Clause has been fully exploited to allow the Federal Gov't to do whatever it wants. Under Lopez, the test was restricted to from "activity which substantially affects commerce (Wickard)" to "economic activity which substantially effects commerce." Thereby, Rehnquist (i think) scaled back the reach of the commerce power as established in Wickard v. Filburn (that anything aggregated enough times will 'substantially affect commerce' and thus is in commerce power) to a limited class of 'economic activities.' However, as the OP mentioned, Gonzalez v. Raich reintroduced the idea of aggregation and effectively re-broadened the rule that Rehnquist limited in Lopez. Anyone think that we'll go back to the Formalist Era, where non-evil things were not regulated, but evil things (lottery tickets, booze) were within commerce clause powers?
__________________
E Pluribus Unum |
May 18, 2009, 04:46 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2009
Location: RGV, Tx
Posts: 787
|
At the point that someone is committing a crime do the law makers really expect them to follow the letter of the law when it comes to wearing body armor?
Just like felons can't be in possession of a gun but they get them anyways
__________________
And death climbs the steps one by one, To give you the rose that's been burnt by her son, Point me to the sky above I can't get there on my own, Walk me through the graveyard Dig up her bones |
May 18, 2009, 07:25 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
It's not? OK, I don't buy it, but let's accept that. The comprehensive regulation argument wasn't enough in US v Oregon, and as usual, Justice Thomas' dissent showed the inconsistency in what the court was doing. Look for Congress' efforts to control interstate commerce in guns to be seen as "comprehensive enough" as needed by the Court. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|