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

« Another Bloomberg mayor bites the dust | Main | Sean Penn and firearms laws »

Oral argument in US v. Castleman

Posted by David Hardy · 15 January 2014 04:13 PM

Here's a summary, from SCOTUSBlog.

The question is how to construe the Federal ban on possession after conviction for a DV misdemeanor. The Federal ban includes offenses that have use or threat of force as an element, whereas this State law forbids causing "bodily injury," defined to include an abrasion, physical pain, temporary illness, or impairment of the function of an organ or a bodily member. It'd thus include, oh, dosing a person with an emetic or a laxative, giving them the flu, etc., which are not uses of force. So does a conviction under that statute qualify as a Federal bar? As the Justices' questions suggest, this is a tricky question.

· 17th Century ~ · Gun Control Act of 68

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | January 16, 2014 5:04 PM | Reply

It shouldn't really be that tricky. The presumption is supposed to be that if the legislature intended for those sorts of things to be covered by the statute they would have spelled them out, since they've done so other places. I.e., a tie goes to the runner.

Anonymous | January 20, 2014 6:39 PM | Reply

Totally agree with this comment. As the Chief Justice stated the position of the U.S. Attorney has no limiting principle. Congress wanted to catch people who were charged with Felonies and pleaded down to Misdemeanors.....instead what has happened is countless lives have been ruined by this law since it has forced people out of the military, police officers have lost their jobs....etc....all for a minor offense, sometimes for nothing more then a slight touch.....Oh and BTW attorney's in contested divorce cases have this at the top of the playlist and courts hand them down like candy.......ridiculous statute that should have never been introduced and passed (although I doubt many in congress even knew it was there since it was tagged onto the 1996 spending bill)....yes Launtenberg was a slim ball who knew how to work the system.....

Agree..tie goes to the runner...and in this case it is Castleman.....

Leave a comment