Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« I'm from the government and I'm here to help... | Main | Three cheers for James Earl Jones! »

Supreme Court on defenses

Posted by David Hardy · 23 June 2006 11:01 AM

Prof. Orin Kerr has a post on the Supreme Court ruling yesterday in Dixon v. US. It involved a woman who violated GCA 68 and alleged duress as a defense: her boyfriend had threatened to kill her if she didn't. The ultimate question was who bears the burden of proof, and what is that burden.

Kerr points out an interesting theme underlying that question.... Congress just passes laws and, unlike most states, never bothers to have a statutory list of affirmative defenses, what is required for each, and who bears the burden. Most federal defenses thus are created by the courts, without statute, and the question is how should courts figure out what is a defense? The Court seems to have gone in several directions in Dixon.

Majority: Congress is assumed to act against a background of common law defenses. Problem here is to figure out how those were treated, as a generality, in 1968. (Rather like some aspects of originalism, he notes -- try to find an answer in intent, when those acting may never have spoken to, or perhaps not contemplated, the specific question).

Justice Kennedy: Congress is assumed to mean for the courts to recognize defenses, which may evolve over time. Hence question is not limited to the law as it stood in 1968.

Justice Alito: agrees. It is a strange fiction to assume that everytime Congress enacts a law, it reviews the body of caselaw on affirmative defenses as it then existed. Besides, this would mean that the burden of the same defense might shift around depending on whether the statute involved was enacted in 1940, in 1970, or in 2006.

Justice Breyer: rather like Kennedy, but tends to regard recognizing defenses as a matter of court policy, rather than an inquiry into how the law stands (i.e., what other courts have done).

Leave a comment