is there a WOODEN v. UNITED STATES thread or in any of the legal forums?

[gunsmith]

WOODEN v. UNITED STATES

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-5279_09m1.pdf

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, I cannot figure out if this is good news or not, I always count on the smart folks here.
Thank you!

[cyphr02]

In summary:

Wooden v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 7, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on October 4, 2021.

In a unanimous ruling, the court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that William Wooden's 10 offenses did not occur on different occasions and count as one prior conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Justice Elena Kagan delivered the majority opinion of the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion in full. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett joined all but Part II-B. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Sotomayor as to Part II, III, and IV. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas.

https://ballotpedia.org/Wooden_v._United_States

[Librarian]

This is the right forum.

However, the case does not seem to have any broad implications for gun rights; Wooden was a 'prohibited person'.

A jury convicted William Dale Wooden of being a felon in possession of a firearm

[Robotron2k84]

It does, tangentially, because the arrest and prosecution that netted Wooden the enhanced sentencing and escalation to SCOTUS happened because of a plain-clothes officer entering the home un-identified under false pretenses to determine if weapons were present, and arrested Mr. Wooden on those grounds.

SCOTUS is broadcasting that felon in possession does not mean the 4th amendment is gutted.

[Librarian]

It does, tangentially, because the arrest and prosecution that netted Wooden the enhanced sentencing and escalation to SCOTUS happened because of a plain-clothes officer entering the home un-identified under false pretenses to determine if weapons were present, and arrested Mr. Wooden on those grounds.

SCOTUS is broadcasting that felon in possession does not mean the 4th amendment is gutted.

Which is a good thing, I think, but our general concern at Calguns is the 2nd.

[Robotron2k84]

[press1280]

They've been unwilling to so far, although a change of scrutiny standards in Bruen may allow for a blank slate for future non-violent felon cases.

[Robotron2k84]

I think some of us have already prognosticated the lawfare that will follow SCOTUS loosing expanded rights in the Pro-2A camp, by the states controlled by leftists. Such an escalation may see the bar for felony crime lowered to ensnare more people for the purposes of disqualification.

This will become the next hill in the fight to secure our rights, and I do hope for more clarity from Thomas, especially, that could prevent such moves.

[stoogescv]

When Barrett was on the appeals court, she took the position (in a dissenting opinion) that non-violent felonies could not be disqualifying. I doubt she has changed her view, but we will see.

[Robotron2k84]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220405/vermont-relentless-gun-control-agenda-consumes-montpelier