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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Arms vs. pirates | Main | Insider thoughts on piracy and arming crews »

Interesting mandatory sentencing case

Posted by David Hardy · 29 April 2009 10:15 AM

Dean v. US, handed down today by the Supreme Court.

18 USC 924(c) imposes a mandatory sentence for use of a firearm in a federal violent crime -- 5 years if carried, 7 if brandished, and 10 if the firearm is discharged. The first sentence of the opinion sums up the case (with rather more wit than we are accustomed to seeing, but Roberts can do that):

"Accidents happen. Sometimes they happen to individuals committing crimes with loaded guns. The question here is whether extra punishment Congress imposed for the discharge of a gun during certain crimes applies when the gun goes off accidentally."

The majority holds that the 10 year mandatory does apply to an AD during a crime.

10 Comments | Leave a comment

fwb | April 29, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply

The question here is whether Congress and the feds can make anything a crime that is NOT directly and specifically delegated as a power to Congress. Funny how throughout the 19th century, the Court recognized that the Police Power was left to the states. Then magically, I know judges all have crystal balls (pun intended) and therefore know better than the people, the feds had police power. Interestingly, they often cite the necessary and proper clause which in reality is a limiting clause, not an expansion of power. Stupid judges, kicks are for kids!

Since Article I, Section 8 delegates the power to Congress to punish certain actions, a proper understanding of the Constitiution would be that in all other cases, the power was withheld and Congress cannot, in those cases, punish the actions. That is the central concpet of our system of delegated powers.

And I still have trouble finding the amendment of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to ban "stuff", equivalent to the 18th. If the 18th was necessary to ban booze, where are the required amendments to ban any other thing? It's not the commerce clause because the commerce clause was in effect when the 18th was added and the fact that the 18th was added proves that the commerce clause DOES NOT extend to those objects. Of course, unless the Constitution is a "living" document and changes with the whim but then why did those stupid old men who wrote the thing waste all that time and paper adding in such a complex amendment process when all the government had to do was "reinterpret"?

Tiochfaidh ar la!

Alan A. | April 29, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply

"Tiochfaidh ar la!
Posted by: fwb at April 29, 2009 11:42 AM"

Ok, after all this time, I've finally broken down.

What the hell does "Tiochfaidh ar la!" mean and in what language?!

James | April 29, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply

FWB - IF the plaintiff had argued that the law was outside the powers of Congress, the Supreme Court might have considered that. As it was, he was just arguing that the sentencing enhancement for discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence was not supposed to apply to an accidental discharge, so that was the only issue addressed by the Supreme Court. If he HAD tried to make that claim, I suspect the government would have argued that since it was a Federally-insured bank, the Feds still had jurisdiction over crimes committed there...

Mike Wilson | April 29, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply

Irish for "our day will come," according to Wikipedia.

fwb | April 29, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply

Alan:

Tiochfaidh ar la! - Our day will come! - Irish

Pronounced - Chucky ar la


James: Understood. In our system the judges only look at what is brought up rather than make a REAL determination. Too bad. They need honor.

Tiochfaidh ar la!

FWB

fwb | April 29, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply

federally insured bank - Under what delegated power does Congress have authority to insure banks?

It's not the commerce clause.

It's not the coin money clause.

And there ain't any implied powers which is proven multiple times using the delegated powers. Congress has no constitutional authority to be involved in banking, that power was left to the states.

Only people who haven't properly studied the Constitution still believe in implied powers.

"Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam"

Mark | April 29, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply

I suppose it might be too much nuance to point out to the USSC that there are no Accidental Discharges, only Negligent Discharges.
Put your booger picker on the bang switch when you shouldn't, and sometimes it activates when you don't want it to.

Ken | April 29, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply

"Only people who haven't properly studied the Constitution still believe in implied powers."

Unfortunately those seem to be the ones who've been running the government for the past century or more. The 18th Amendment was a momentary departure from the party line, similar to the decision in United States v. Lopez, which now seems to be ignored even by its authors.

Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde.

fwb | April 30, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply

Ken:

Excellent quote!!!!

FWB

N.U.G.U.N. Blog | May 1, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply

What happens potentially to a CCW who commits some minor crime, perhaps accidentally.

I once was arrested for digging in a dumpster. Got charged for trespassing, even though it was just in a parking lot. The cops wanted it dropped. I had no legal counsel, no money to hire one and I was threatened with the loss of my job if I took anymore time off. I was young and naive... (who'd have thought digging in the dumpster would get an Eagle Scout and Valedictorian a criminal record).

But what if something similar happened. Some minor misdemeanor. And you're carrying. Now all of a sudden you've got to worry about a 5 yr sentence.

????

Or am I not understanding something about the law here?

Leave a comment