|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 28, 2018, 01:49 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Legal eagles - a judge overturns 2A restrictions for non-violent felons
IL District Court declares 18 UCS, 922(g)(1) unconstitutional when applied to a man who was convicted of a non-violent felony AND spent no time in prison.
https://reason.com/assets/db/15248473798653.pdf Interesting and very understandable read, even for a casual layman as myself. Would the real lawyers here care to comment? I personally see this as maybe a crack in the wall? I applaud it - will fed.gov appeal and perhaps risk losing in SCOTUS? Curious to hear the opinions of the experts. |
April 28, 2018, 09:10 AM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Verrrrry interesting.
By coincidence, just last weekend I attended an Appleseed shoot with a friend, and we discussed this exact point (but not this case) during the hour-and-a-half drive home from the event. To me the decision makes perfect sense, and I hope it is upheld. I'm tired of lower and appellate federal courts using that "presumptively lawful" phrase to claim that Heller automatically declared all preeexisting gun control laws to be lawful so they (the courts) don't have to look at them. |
April 28, 2018, 11:42 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
I wonder how far up the food chain the appeals will go on this one.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
April 28, 2018, 12:33 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
|
I totally agree but time (and courts) will tell.
__________________
I give MY OPINION (not often) based on many years shooting at, other than paper targets. I will not debate my experience vs. your experience based on dreams and "what ifs." I'm 73; I'm too damn old to care. |
April 28, 2018, 07:06 PM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
|
|
April 29, 2018, 12:48 PM | #6 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Let's be real here. A federal (gun) law was just ruled unconstitutional, even if only "as applied" to the instant case. The Federal Government must appeal.
Then it will come down to who is on the appeals panel for the 7th Circuit. |
April 29, 2018, 04:39 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I like this one and will likely file it away in my 2A Research file. I do think it will be appealed by the gov't, and will likely be overturned. I think that primarily just because it's the 7th Circuit, although we have had some useful cases come out of there.
I dug the case up in Westlaw and noticed a couple of things. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of standing. Plaintiff responded and defendant replied. Reply briefs are discouraged under the Local Rules, so the defendant got his hand slapped and his MTD was denied. With that said, this case has enough positive things going for it that I almost hope it's over turned on appeal. If it stands on appeal, it may or may not make it to SCOTUS. I don't know that the USAtty would appeal it, because it's as-applied. I also don't know when, where, and under what exact circumstances a USAtty must appeal. If it's overturned, there's a chance it could get to SCOTUS. Anyway, here are the things that make this one attractive as an appellate case for me:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 29, 2018, 05:10 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
I just read the whole thing. It's beautiful. It's going to require a lot of dishonesty to overturn it. (I predict it will be overturned)
This one might make it to the Supreme Court.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
April 29, 2018, 08:01 PM | #9 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Trial court case, so not precedent, BUT there is a similar appellate level case in the Third Circuit, Binderup V Attorney General (836 F.3d 336).
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
April 29, 2018, 10:19 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 629
|
Good stuff...
One situation which comes up in very gun unfriendly states is they have adjusted their laws over time by attaching 2.5 year jail sentences to crimes they consider misdemeanors, shamelessly to limit gun ownership wherever they can. - In MA for instance for many such crimes nobody has ever been sentence to a day in jail in the history of the state (certainly not > 2 years), but it clips gun rights permanently. |
May 1, 2018, 01:53 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
Interesting.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
May 1, 2018, 03:38 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
From a "judges as politicians" view I'm rather curious to see how this comes out of the seventh. There seems to be some motivation to prevent attaching continued punishment to criminal actions after the sentence has been completed. I'm going to go with the theory that discussion of the previous point is off topic and only note that such a movement exists. This might turn out well even in the land of activist judges.
|
|
|