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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Thoughts on "may issue" in California | Main | Andrew Traver nominated for director of ATFE »

Supreme Court on mandatory sentencing

Posted by David Hardy · 16 November 2010 08:36 AM

The Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Abbot v. US.

18 USC 924(c) provides for a mandatory five year sentence for possession of a gun in connection with a drug trafficking crime. The sentence is to be in addition to any other imprisonment, except to the extent that a greater mandatory sentence is imposed by 924(c) or other law. Defendants had received 10 and 15 year mandatory sentences for felon in possession and drug trafficking offenses.

The Court unanimously rules that the "except" clause only relates to mandatory sentences imposed for the conduct that 924(c) punishes, i.e., for possession in connection with a drug trafficking offense, not for drug trafficking itself or for felon in possessison.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

fwb | November 16, 2010 8:57 AM | Reply

And I ask again which clause(s)of the Constitution for the United States of America gives Congress/the feds ANY authority to make using a gun a crime?

There are only three grants of punishment power in the Constitution. The enforcement clauses in the various amendments allow action against States but not persons.

The existence of these threee punishment clauses provides ample evidence that the feds do not have ANY punishment power without an explicit grant. If the feds had punishment/police power, then these clauses are unnecessary. If they are unnecessary, why ado they exist in the Constitution? Either the argument that makes them unnecessary is wrong OR the Framers were just too stupid to produce a good Constitution.

If these judges could 1) read and comprehend English, 2) understand our form of government, 3) function logically, and 4) act honorably, we would not see this kind of wrong determinations.

Leave a comment