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

« Interesting case on firearm evidence | Main | Man defends self in NYC, faces two dozen criminal charges »

Supreme Court GCA case

Posted by David Hardy · 22 June 2023 02:24 PM

Jones v. Hendrix. The petitioner was convicted in 2000 as a felon-in-possession. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that proving that charge requires proof that the defendant knew he possessed a gun and knew of his status (i.e., that he'd been convicted of a felony).

After his 2000 conviction, he'd brought a ยง2255 habeas corpus petition. Now he wants to bring a second habeas petition, based on the Court's 2019 interpretation of the GCA. A majority rules he can't, due to a clause in the statute.

The Constitution says that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion. The majority notes that at the time of the Framing, habeas relief was not available based on arguments that the court had mis-interpreted a statute, and so the statutory limit was constitutional.

(Note-- "The Solicitor General then noticed her intent to defend the Eighth Circuit's judgment but not its rationale. We appointed Morgan Ratner as amicus curiae to argue in support of the Eighth Circuit's reasoning. 597 U. S. ___ (2022). She has ably discharged her responsibilities.")

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Pete | June 24, 2023 3:26 PM | Reply

Not a lawyer but wouldn't a petition for clemency be more appropriate here?

Leave a comment