« The competition continues | Main | California to require background checks for ammo purchases »
Supreme Court ruling on intent under the Gun Control Act
Today's ruling in Rehaif v. United States. Defendant was a person who overstayed a visa and thus became an illegal alien, and a prohibited person under the GCA. He visited a gun range and shot at it. The GCA provides for the punishment of anyone who "knowingly" possesses a gun while he is prohibited person. Question: does that mean the person must 1. know that he possess a gun and know that he is a prohibited person, or just that he knows he possessed a gun whether or not he knew he was prohibited? The Supreme Court, 7-2, says he must know both things. Good language about how courts should assume that legislatures wanted intent to be something close to he knew he was breaking the law, and rejecting the theory that "regulatory" offenses don't require intent (which the Court correctly notes must be limited to regulatory offenses that carry minor punishments. The government doesn't have to show a driver knew he was breaking the speed limit, but here the offense carries ten years in prison).
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Wasn't there a case where an AR15 with no FA fire control parts malfunctioned and accidentally fired off a couple of rounds with one trigger pull? Once that happens, a person becomes an instant felon, because he was in possession of a machine gun, even though there was no intent to do so. I wonder what effect this decision would have on such an offense.
Once again the feds HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO PUNISH OR EVEN MAKE THIS ACTION A CRIME. How ignorant do people have to be to not understand that the feds were never given police powers outside the 6 that at enumerated in the Constitution? If the Constitution does not grant a police power to the fed, the fed cannot constitutionally exercise such power. That is except IN DC where they have exclusive legislation, NOT ABSOLUTE, but exclusive of other governments.
Why did the Framers see the necessity of explicitly granting power to punish counterfeiting, piracy on the high seas, felonies on the high seas, offense against the law of nations, treason BUT the Framers never saw fit to allow or grant any other police powers to the Fed? Why is it that the Constitutional scholars of the 19th century continually stated that police powers were left to the states?
If it weren't for the lying justices we wouldn't have all these unconstitutional laws, like the NFA and CGA and the FOPA on the books. The truth and the fact is that the feds have no authority to do anything about Arms and no power to punish outside those explicitly granted.
I love how certain folks THINK they can determine intent when no one can EVER determine another's intentions. It's like the courts believing they are SO gifted as to be able to determine the intent behind the Bill of Rights as they did in Barron (1833). BUT what were the intentions of the hundreds of others who ratified the BoR? Can the courts determine each and every involved person's intent? No. Hell most folks can't even determine their own intent.
Intent to distribute. Maybe in the mind of the persecutor. It's too bad our legal system is so messed up by a bunch of folks who lack cojones and have TWS.
Does this lead to the idea that ignorance of the law really is an excuse?
Superficially this seems friendly to shooters, but actually it is friendly to illegal aliens. As the dissenters point out very clearly this decision is bad law.