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 15, 2009, 12:26 AM   #1
Ricky B
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.
Ricky B is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 05:18 AM   #2
Double Naught Spy
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
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 02:44 PM   #3
apr1775
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.
apr1775 is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 04:57 PM   #4
Don Gwinn
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
Don Gwinn is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 06:21 PM   #5
Shadi Khalil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 5,210
Quote:
A felon named Alderman?

Guy from Chicago, by any chance?

He was arrested in Washington State.
Shadi Khalil is offline  
Old May 16, 2009, 04:17 PM   #6
Erik
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
Erik is offline  
Old May 16, 2009, 04:52 PM   #7
Dragon55
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
Dragon55 is offline  
Old May 16, 2009, 05:03 PM   #8
Dragon55
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
Dragon55 is offline  
Old May 16, 2009, 06:17 PM   #9
mskdgunman
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).
mskdgunman is offline  
Old May 17, 2009, 07:25 AM   #10
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
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.
They can ban possession as part of regulation.

Scalia, concurring in Raich:

Quote:
The application of these principles to the case before us is straightforward. In the CSA, Congress has undertaken to extinguish the interstate market in Schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana. The Commerce Clause unquestionably permits this. The power to regulate interstate commerce “extends not only to those regulations which aid, foster and protect the commerce, but embraces those which prohibit it.” ..... To effectuate its objective, Congress has prohibited almost all intrastate activities related to Schedule I substances–both economic activities (manufacture, distribution, possession with the intent to distribute) and noneconomic activities (simple possession)..... That simple possession is a noneconomic activity is immaterial to whether it can be prohibited as a necessary part of a larger regulation. Rather, Congress’s authority to enact all of these prohibitions of intrastate controlled-substance activities depends only upon whether they are appropriate means of achieving the legitimate end of eradicating Schedule I substances from interstate commerce.
publius42 is offline  
Old May 17, 2009, 11:10 AM   #11
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
There's the rub

Quote:
That simple possession is a noneconomic activity is immaterial to whether it can be prohibited as a necessary part of a larger regulation.
But here I see the question as being whether Congress could prohibit simple possession when it is not part of a larger regulation. In other words, unlike controlled substances, Congress has not generally prohibited selling body armor.

Maybe Scalia would agree with me:

Quote:
the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective.

Last edited by Ricky B; May 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM.
Ricky B is offline  
Old May 17, 2009, 06:12 PM   #12
KChen986
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
KChen986 is offline  
Old May 18, 2009, 04:46 AM   #13
Hellbilly5000
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
Hellbilly5000 is offline  
Old May 18, 2009, 07:25 AM   #14
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
In other words, unlike controlled substances, Congress has not generally prohibited selling body armor.
Ah, the "comprehensive regulatory scheme" argument. We'll uphold regulations against the dangerous use of drugs because they're part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme, but gun regulation is not comprehensive.

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.
publius42 is offline  
Reply

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 08:16 AM.


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 0.09819 seconds with 10 queries