« Returning from Howard Law symposium | Main | John Lott takes down Bloomberg's claims on mass shootings »
Oral argument in Armed Career Criminal Act case
Johnson v. United States. Issue is whether possession of an unregistered short barreled shotgun qualifies as a crime of violence under the ACCA. I'd say the government is going to lose this one. I don't know the defendant's attorney, Katherine M. Menendez, Fed. Public Defender, but she did a really first-rate job of arguing her case.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
I wonder if the government committed a "Brady Violation" by not disclosing multiple ATF ruling letters claiming that "pistol gripped shotgun-like firearms" can have a barrel lengths less than 18" and NOT be NFA?
Is it legal to inform SCOTUS directly of these letters while they decide?
If so how?
So far the only glitch I see Mrs. Menendez making is saying that the tax is $200. It's only $5 for "Any Other Weapon".
I don't see this overturning "Miller" or the NFA. What I do see is having a large chunk of how the Armed Career Criminal Actis being used pulled out from under the Feds. It seems it would have been a slam-dunk with state "felon in possession" charges, but somebody wanted to enhane their career - and it looks like they will end up with egg on their face.
stay safe.
I think skidmark has it.
I would really like it if everytime the Feds argue that NFA items are special because they "aren't in common use" it was pointed out that Econ 101 makes it clear that making legal things more expensive and time-consuming to get inherently decreases their use.
The stat for Johnson/Menendez to pull is how many SBR etc registrations occurred recently, as $200 has become less expensive in real dollars and as more states have decriminalized them. That trend would provide evidence that, absent Miller/NFA, those weapons/devices would clearly be in widespread common use.
Did anyone else find the questions pointing to the Gov losing? Even Kagen seemed to doubt the Fed Lawyer's arguments.
US v Miller ... 1939?
Providing the defendant has council this time .. maybe this is The Big One we have been waiting for.
If PRECEDENT can be over-ridden by proper legal representation, this might completely over-ride current Firearms Law.
It's about time this hoary beast was re-examined.
And no, the issue of 'armed career criminal CAN be ignored in chambers.
Of course, Johnson is toast.
But this allows the court to revisit the original shameful case.
It depends on the court. IF they are willing to acknowledge that the original case was flawed (due to inadequate defendant representation) the issue of "short barreled shotguns" might be thrown out of court by a careful defending attrney.
Whether a felon ("career Criminal") has given up his second amendment rights will be the pivotal issue. but it may provide an revised opinion for future cases.
Or maybe this is all wishful thinking on my part.