|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
UNITED STATES v. DAVIS ET AL.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-431_7758.pdf
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/24/g...ls-gun-crimes/ "Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc to deal victory for criminal defendants Monday, striking down a federal law that punishes gun crimes as unconstitutionally vague. The law at issue authorizes heightened penalties for individuals who use firearms to a commit a “crime of violence.” In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the decision would undermine public safety." Hmmm ... I don't see this as necessarily bad considering the penchant for targeting gun owners in this State.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I agree - no one writes more vague gun laws than CA, and it is us who are subject to the whims of prosecutors because of it.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
The SCOTUS libs weren't thinking about us, only about a couple of scummy criminals but, hey, the Constitution applies to us, too.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gorsuch is going to be another swing vote and pain in our collective asses. But go ahead and convince me otherwise. I'd love to be foolishly optimistic. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
It is my own personal opinion/observation. That this "vagueness" is a planned situation. Legs make a poorly worded/vague law. It passes, of course. Then the DOJ steps in and "interprets" this vague law, to include many restrictive aspects not actually included in the text of the legislation. And it is their "interpretation" that is codified into the PC.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Gorsuch is the, “guys, you’re making this too complicated” Justice which I think could be helpful for us in steering decisions away from more frilly tests that the lower courts can use against us. The only problem it may cause is if Roberts and Gorsuch have difficulty agreeing with each other on firmness of language in the decision.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-431_7758.pdf For anyone interested in reading the opinion rather than making broad, sweeping claims about how Gorsuch is going to rule going forward, the opinion is above. I am not saying this doesn't mean anything, but we are talking about statutory interpretations of the residual clause ACCA, which defines a two part standard for a crime of violence. This opinion may very well mean something, but let's stop pretending like most of us have an adequate enough understanding of constitutional law to definitively argue what this means about Gorsuch going forward, especially since we are talking about the vagueness doctrine which has addressed the ACCA's violent crime terminology several times in the past few years. And by the way, the vagueness of the residual clause in the ACCA was ruled as unconstitutional in 2015 with the majority written by Scalia. Quote:
A list of 5-4 decisions for this term so far |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
John Paul Stevens said “I know it when I see it”.
Justice should be blind but Gorsuch needs a cane. The law 28 usc blah blah defined what violent means. Back to my first point. This seems all rather pornographic to me. It insults my senses and does nothing good for society.
__________________
Imagine the banning of Assault Articles, High Capacity Editorials, and the existance of Off List Periodicals |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I'll happily admit that I am not a lawyer (haven't even visited the campus of a law school) and that I've not done much research on this case.
That said, from what little I know, I'm with the Liberals and Gorsuch on this one. The term "crimes of violence" is, IMHO as a non-lawyer, ridiculously vague.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The only kind of gun control liberals don't like is the kind that impacts criminals, mostly minorities. You notice that they will support the most crazy things, but tough sentences on someone who commits a crime with a gun, or stop / query / frisk systems, or federal charges for felon in possession, are all opposed by liberals. Why is that?
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
When did the laws having to be direct and easily interpreted by everyone become bad? You do realize a vague open ended law can imprison the innocent just as easily as the guilty, right?
__________________
NRA lifetime member 2AF Defender member When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"? Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’ Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
CA DOJ defines a FH exactly and I would say it's complicated. Defined to the extent of stating the device must be attached to the muzzle and serve to "divert" the flash away from the shooter's field of view. The same could be said of a muzzle brake. Exact, but vague too. Because it encompasses something it ought not include. It seems to me that where CA law is most vague is the contrived definition of "assault weapon". It's a term without applicable meaning, other than the one created by the legislature. More so, as used in law it is counter to the long standing and "term of art" definition of an AW as a select fire weapon. The ability to define and legislate against on that basis seems a very dangerous one. My question is, could this decision helps us strike down laws based on such artificially crafted definitions such as assault weapon, unsafe handguns (wherein exact models are allowed or prohibited based on DOM or finish, barrel length, sights, etc) or "large capacity feeding devices"? Large capacity is about as vague as it gets. Last edited by dfletcher; 06-26-2019 at 10:39 AM.. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In an opinion analysis posted on SCOTUSblog... Quote:
Kisor v. Wilkie and the Chevron Doctrine Kisor v. Wilkie challenge to Auer deference (granted cert) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Difficulty in attempting to ascertain statutory meaning will neither excuse the failure to make the attempt to determine whether a contemplated course of conduct falls under the statute, nor will it nullify the statute. Personal Watercraft Coalition v. Board of Supervisors (App. 1 Dist. 2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 129, review denied. Statutes drafted contrary to the science of arms may be challenged on other bases such as the 2nd Am. (heightened level of review) or the dormant commerce clause. See Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (The District Court found that the initial cost of installing those [curved] mudguards on all the trucks owned by the appellees ranged from $4,500 to $45,840. There was also evidence in the record to indicate that the cost of maintenance and replacement of these guards is substantial... it was conclusively shown that the contour mud flap possesses no advantages over the conventional or straight mud flap previously required in Illinois and presently required in most of the states . . .) Last edited by sarabellum; 06-26-2019 at 11:34 PM.. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|