« Thoughts on "may issue" in California | Main | Andrew Traver nominated for director of ATFE »
Supreme Court on mandatory sentencing
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.
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.