Supreme Court Grants Cert. on Gun Case

[BigBoxaJunk]

The Court upholding the right to income from your property? That won't go over well on INGO!

Kirk; either they don't care about that as much as you think they do, or they're really busy at work today, because you've tried to bait them, like four times and all I hear is crickets.

 

[T.Lex]

Unanimous.

Dude can sell his guns while in police custody. Basically.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1487_l6gn.pdf

A court-ordered transfer of a felon’s lawfully owned firearms from Government custody to a third party is not barred by §922(g) if the court is satisfied that the recipient will not give the felon control over the firearms, so that he could either use them or direct their use.

ETA:
Only real surprises are unanimous and Kagan writing. Well, the general common-sense nature of the opinion is a bit surprising, too, I guess.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Unanimous.

Dude can sell his guns while in police custody. Basically.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-1487_l6gn.pdf

You trying to make INGO mad?

The right to income from your property is one of the sticks in the bundle, no matter how uncool it is on the 'net. Good to see a 9-0 decision on this fundamental right.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes and so?

He was convicted and thus a prohibited person.

While I agree that there is interest in the SCOTUS decision on the matter at-hand (property/income rights), I cannot find "prohibited person" in any of my copies of the Constitution.

 

[T.Lex]

While I agree that there is interest in the SCOTUS decision on the matter at-hand (property/income rights), I cannot find "prohibited person" in any of my copies of the Constitution.

"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" isn't in there, either.

But, as noted in Heller, the Founding Fathers (and those that came after) had no problems limiting access to firearms.

 

[chipbennett]

Unanimous.

Dude can sell his guns while in police custody. Basically.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1487_l6gn.pdf



ETA:
Only real surprises are unanimous and Kagan writing. Well, the general common-sense nature of the opinion is a bit surprising, too, I guess.

I look forward to reading the decision. The got the conclusion correct, IMHO.

Side question: why should property be handed over to an agent of the State, rather than transferred to a third-party, in the first place? FBI should never have had possession of his property to begin with, which would have prevented the whole mess.

(And I reiterate that there is nothing in the constitution that allows for the State to declare "prohibited persons" anyway. If someone is convicted of a felony, the person is in the custody of the State for the duration of his incarceration, and effectively - constructively, even? - separated from possession of firearms. And once the sentence is completed, the person should be restored to society a free man, with all constitutionally protected rights intact.)

 

[chipbennett]

"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" isn't in there, either.

But, as noted in Heller, the Founding Fathers (and those that came after) had no problems limiting access to firearms.

There is considerably more room for interpretation in "due process" than there is in "shall not be infringed".

 

[T.Lex]

Side question: why should property be handed over to an agent of the State, rather than transferred to a third-party, in the first place? FBI should never have had possession of his property to begin with, which would have prevented the whole mess.

In truth, the facts of this case are relatively unique for how this works (at least, in my experience). More typically, the felon (or alleged felon) is arrested for crimes and the firearms taken as evidence. So, that explains LE possession of (but not title to) the guns.

The federales cannot allow a felon to retain possession of firearms, as that would be aiding an additional crime.

If someone is convicted of a felony, the person is in the custody of the State for the duration of his incarceration, and effectively - constructively, even? - separated from possession of firearms. And once the sentence is completed, the person should be restored to society a free man, with all constitutionally protected rights intact.)

Reasonable people can disagree on that.

There is considerably more room for interpretation in "due process" than there is in "shall not be infringed".

That isn't the problematic part of the sentence.

 

[chipbennett]

You trying to make INGO mad?

The right to income from your property is one of the sticks in the bundle, no matter how uncool it is on the 'net. Good to see a 9-0 decision on this fundamental right.

I'm perusing the decision, and I came to the early discussion of the "sticks in the bundle", regarding "possession" being a thick stick, that encompasses both actual and constructive possession. The part I find interesting is that the State can't prevent actual possession, much less constructive possession. If constructive possession includes issuing and having followed orders regarding the use of firearms, then given the number of mob/gang/etc. "hits" ordered from incarcerated felons, the State can't even prevent constructive possession in prison. (Oh, and actual possession, too. But I suppose that's beside the point.)

And here's the money quote:

What matters here is not whether a felonplays a role in deciding where his firearms should go next:That test would logically prohibit a transfer even whenthe chosen recipient will later sell the guns to someoneelse. What matters instead is whether the felon will havethe ability to use or direct the use of his firearms afterthe transfer. That is what gives the felon constructivepossession.

 

[T.Lex]

SCOTUSblog assessment:
Opinion analysis: An equitable result in Henderson v. United States : SCOTUSblog

 

[ArcadiaGP]

U.S. top court hands win to Florida felon over gun ownership | Reuters

 

[hoosierdoc]

So what is the real reason this was done? I'm jaded so I assume the "gun" is a Trojan horse for something else they will lean on this decision for.

 

[T.Lex]

So what is the real reason this was done? I'm jaded so I assume the "gun" is a Trojan horse for something else they will lean on this decision for.

I'm not sure I follow.

This is actually a win for property rights. Really, there's a bit of libertarianism (the good kind) in this. When people own something, the have certain rights. The right to sell is one of them. By this decision, SCOTUS affirmed that the right to sell remains separate from the right to possess, when possession is illegal.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I'll take your word for it. I just don't trust them at all and am naturally skeptical.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

First, good news! Glad to hear it!

Second, is there any way this ruling could possibly be used to help people who have had cash and other assets seized by LEO's without any charges being filed?

Please, please, please say this opens the door there!!!

Regards,

Doug

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

So who else is completely surprised by the unanimous decision?

Sotomayer? Really? Isn't she a huge advocate of eminent domain (with all the new implications)?

Head scratcher.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes - a bit surprised at the unanimity. But, the "bundle of sticks" idea of property rights is pretty well-settled.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I hate to be the "Debbie Downer," but this also entrenches the idea that a free man (ie served his time), cannot own a firearm.

 

[T.Lex]

I hate to be the "Debbie Downer," but this also entrenches the idea that a free man (ie served his time), cannot own a firearm.

I do not think that concept could possibly be any more ensconced in the bedrock of American jurisprudence than it already was.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I do not think that concept could possibly be any more ensconced in the bedrock of American jurisprudence than it already was.

Isn't there a process for non-violent felons to recover their 2A rights?