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

« Bank robber turned Supreme Court draftsman | Main | Al Gore effect on a continental scale »

Lively month coming up in Supreme Court

Posted by David Hardy · 10 February 2010 01:38 PM

Leading up to the argument in Chicago, set for March 2, we have:

Carr v. US, argued on February 24. Carr was a convicted sex offender who moved to another State before the Federal statute requiring registration after an interstate move was enacted. He was later arrested for not having registered after enactment of the law. Question: is this an ex post facto law, since it increases the punishment for the crime, after the commission of the crime, or is it not, since he committed the Federal offense via conduct occurring after enactment of the Federal law, by not heeding its requirement to register?
The positions staked out parallel the issues raised when the firearm possession ban for domestic violence misdemeanors is applied to such convictions as occurred before the change in law, and I suspect the ruling here will determine the status of those cases.

Second, there is US v. O'Brien, to be argued February 23. At issue is the 30 year mandatory sentence for use of a fully automatic firearm in a crime. Issue: is the use of a full auto an element of the crime, which must be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, or just a sentencing factor, which need only be proven true by a preponderence of the evidence?

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Gene Hoffman | February 10, 2010 2:27 PM | Reply

And then there is this other tiny case a couple of days later...

-Gene

fwb | February 11, 2010 9:40 AM | Reply

Actually the feds have NO AUTHORITY to make things criminal and to prescibe punishments outside 5 explicit areas. Read Article I Section 8 and Article II, Section 3. Note the explicit grants of power to punish and the glaring absence of punishment powers for ALL other areas. The "necessary and proper" phrase DOES NOT delegate the power. IF the N&P phrase granted any other powers, then the explicit delegation of nearly half of the powers in Section 8 was wholly unnecessary. Any reading of one clause that negates the need for the inclusion of another clause is flat out WRONG.

This is the true separation of powers. Congress and the feds have very specific powers and the States are to enforce laws make in proper concert with those powers. Every author I've read from the 18th and 19th centuries states that the Police Power was left to the States. And the Constitutional language provides the final proof.

Leave a comment