« Clayton Cramer is glad they don't have Canada's murder rate where he lives | Main | GunFacts is fundraising »
Luis V. United States, Thomas concurrence
A decision, handed down yesterday. The Court essentially held that the government could not use wide-ranging forfeiture powers to freeze "untainted" money held by defendant, and thereby prevent the defendant from retaining private counsel. Justice Thomas, concurring, adds
"Constitutional rights thus implicitly protect those closely related acts necessary to their exercise. "There comes a point . . . at which the regulation of action intimately and unavoidably connected with [a right] is a regulation of [the right] itself." Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703, 745 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The right to keep and bear arms, for example, "implies a corresponding right to obtain the bullets necessary to use them," Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746 F. 3d 953, 967 (CA9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), and "to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use," Ezell v. Chicago, 651 F. 3d 684, 704 (CA7 2011). See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 617-618 (2008) (citing T. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law 271 (2d ed. 1891) (discussing the implicit right to train with weapons)); United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 180 (1939) (citing 1 H. Osgood, The American Colonies in the 17th Century 499 (1904) (discussing the implicit right to possess ammunition)); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 178 (1871) (discussing both rights). Without protection for these closely related rights, the Second Amendment would be toothless."
UPDATE: A concurrence has some, limited, presidential value (except where it provides the fifth vote for a position -- then its value increases). It tells us how at least one justice is thinking, it can be cited by lower courts friendly to his position, or can be cited by the Court itself should the Justice someday get a majority to accept it. Directly it doesn't bind the Court, nor even the Justice who wrote it.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
The court really should admit that the federal government does not have any far-reaching forfeiture powers. In fact, the federal government has only 6 legitimate, constitutional police/punishment powers. One can first verify this with the 1798 VA/KY Resolutions. Then one can simply read the entire Constitution and locate the 6 areas where any kind of punishment power was granted. Last one must understand that the inclusion of even a single police power as a grant proves beyond all doubt that all ungranted police powers are withheld and retained by the states. If one attempts to usurp powers through the N&P clause one must then understand that in so doing one makes the case that the Framers were ignorant for granting any police powers because those grants were unnecessary if one improperly uses the N&P clause. The inclusion of the police power to punish counterfeiting and the other punishment powers prove that the federal government has no unenumerated punishment powers. There can be no logical, legitimate argument against this conclusion.
I'm going to guess some form of spell checker changed precedential to presidential?
So, as a lay person, I have to ask: how important or significant is a concurrence such as this one, when it comes to preserving/protecting gun rights in the future? What is its value? Is it something that can be referenced in other, later arguments/trials?
Thanks for your time.