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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« The competition continues | Main | California to require background checks for ammo purchases »

Supreme Court ruling on intent under the Gun Control Act

Posted by David Hardy · 21 June 2019 11:16 AM

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

Hideous | June 21, 2019 4:19 PM | Reply

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.

Divemedic | June 21, 2019 7:10 PM | Reply

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.

FWB | June 21, 2019 8:28 PM | Reply

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.

FWB | June 22, 2019 7:07 AM | Reply

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.

Hooda Thunkett | June 24, 2019 9:14 PM | Reply

Does this lead to the idea that ignorance of the law really is an excuse?

Leave a comment