PDA

View Full Version : CA9: USA v. Potter


Window_Seat
01-26-2011, 11:18 AM
Look what I found... :drool5:

A "possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime" case which upholds the possession conviction of a person who was charged. Probably nothing new, but it has one part of it that woke me up:

We join the Seventh Circuit in holding that 924(c) is constitutional under the Second Amendment. United States v. Jackson, 555 F.3d 635, 636 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 147 (2009); see also Vongxay, 594 F.3d at 1118 (holding that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), which criminalizes the possession of firearms by certain felons, is constitutional).

It said "certain felons", not ALL felons... What can we make of this, and other cases, now that the 9th joins this holding?

Even if he kept the firearm also to protect himself and his home, he committed a crime because he possessed the firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. The final jury instructions were correct. See also United States v. Morsette, 622 F.3d 1200, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that Heller and McDonald did not require alteration of a jury instruction concerning self-defense in a criminal trial).

So are they saying that if a felon (the opinion doesn't indicate that Potter was a felon prior to committing the crime) is possessing a firearm in the home for self defense, and is not otherwise committing a crime, it's possible that they could be protected by the Second Amendment (Heller), maybe because they are currently going about their private life as a law-abiding & responsible citizen?

Could something like this make the Brady's & the LCAVs sweat marbles and gurneys?

Discussion?

Erik.

wash
01-26-2011, 11:27 AM
I could be wrong but I think they are just citing that to maybe kill an apeal or address a 2A claim made by the defense.

I don't think it means much for our side except a correct decision, unless you are one of the people who thinks anyone who isn't in jail should have full RKBA (if you were, that decision might piss you off).

I wish that these decisions would help us get rid of the Lautenberg amendment but I don't think they are enough to avoid a showdown at SCOTUS.

BoxesOfLiberty
01-26-2011, 11:28 AM
IANAL, but it seems to me that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) which reads:


(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable
by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive
any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.


only describes certain felons (those whose crime is punishable by a term exceeding one year). Again, IANAL, but my understanding is that some felonies are punishable by a term of exactly one year, and persons convicted of such crimes would not be described by 922(g)(1).

Again, IANAL and may be misunderstanding the code.

Glock22Fan
01-26-2011, 11:39 AM
which criminalizes the possession of firearms by certain felons, is constitutional).


It said "certain felons", not ALL felons... What can we make of this, and other cases, now that the 9th joins this holding?


Well, if you are certain they are felons, then firearms possession is criminalized. Makes sense to me :D

Merle
01-26-2011, 11:44 AM
Even if he kept the firearm also to protect himself and his home, he committed a crime because he possessed the firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.

So are they saying that if a felon (the opinion doesn't indicate that Potter was a felon prior to committing the crime) is possessing a firearm in the home for self defense, and is not otherwise committing a crime, it's possible that they could be protected by the Second Amendment (Heller), maybe because they are currently going about their private life as a law-abiding & responsible citizen?
Erik.

No, I think the portion in bold is to head off the argument that he has a 2A right to possess the gun. E.g. "Even if he did have a 2A right, he was robbing the bank and the gun charge enhances the crime"

However, if he was busted for mere possession of a firearm (especially in the home!) then I believe the 2A question would be applicable.

Write Winger
01-26-2011, 12:00 PM
I don't know if I'm in the majority on this, bit I'm a firm believer that part of the sentencing for anyone who breaks the law should have a section regarding what rights you lose. I dont believe someone who didn't commit a violent crime should immediately lose their right to self defense. Am I wrong?

Merle
01-26-2011, 12:06 PM
I don't know if I'm in the majority on this, bit I'm a firm believer that part of the sentencing for anyone who breaks the law should have a section regarding what rights you lose. I dont believe someone who didn't commit a violent crime should immediately lose their right to self defense. Am I wrong?

There is nothing to stop the government from passing an ex post facto law (e.g. Lautenberg Amendment) which would cause you to lose additional rights after sentencing (and completing your payment of "debt to society")

Hence, that which you agree to may be changed to restrict your rights after the fact.

J.D.Allen
01-26-2011, 12:08 PM
I don't know if I'm in the majority on this, bit I'm a firm believer that part of the sentencing for anyone who breaks the law should have a section regarding what rights you lose. I dont believe someone who didn't commit a violent crime should immediately lose their right to self defense. Am I wrong?

No. You are not wrong. IMHO people convicted of felony check fraud or petty theft with a prior etc. should not lose their 2A rights.

ke6guj
01-26-2011, 2:29 PM
the reason for hte wording "certain felons" is that there are some felons that are not prohibited from firearms possesion. Those felons would be "white collar" felons.

921(a)(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or

J.D.Allen
01-26-2011, 2:34 PM
the reason for hte wording "certain felons" is that there are some felons that are not prohibited from firearms possesion. Those felons would be "white collar" felons.

What? Really? Cite please?

ke6guj
01-26-2011, 2:36 PM
What? Really? Cite please?

I cited it in the quote, 921(a)(20)(A)

I'll break it down for you.

federal law says that it is illegal for the following people to possess firearms:

922(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any
court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year;
to ship or transport in
interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
in or affecting commerce, any firearm
or ammunition; or to receive any
firearm or ammunition which has been
shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commercefeceral law does not use the term "felon" here, so you then look up 921(a)(20) for the defintion of "a crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year" and you find the following:

921(a)(20) The term "crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year" does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses
pertaining to antitrust violations, un6
fair trade practices, restraints of
trade, or other similar offenses relating
to the regulation of business
practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by
the laws of the State as a misdemeanor
and punishable by a term of
imprisonment of two years or less.(A) covers those "white collar" business felonies. In addtion, (B) exempts those state misdemeanors that are punishable for up to 2 years. So, even though you might get an 18month prison sentence for a crime, if the state calls it a misdemeanor, it doesn't take away your federal gun rights.

ALSystems
01-27-2011, 12:18 AM
I guess this means some "dangerous":rolleyes: ex-cons like Martha Steward can still buy guns.

Write Winger
01-27-2011, 7:13 AM
I keep thinking of G. Gordon Liddy, lol