Results 1 to 7 of 7
-
September 18th, 2010, 08:57 PM #1
Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns
In U.S. v. Yancey, No. 09-1138 (Sept. 3, 2010)
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...9-1138_003.pdf
Interesting read.
One question for the judges. What enumerated power in the constitution gives the feds any say over domestic violent crime? They have the power to define and punish piracies on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.
Case law,built upon case law, upon case law without returning to the original constitutional law is judicial fiat!Last edited by YosemiteSam; September 18th, 2010 at 09:52 PM.
NRA life member/ILA/PVA/Whittington Center sponsor
GOA member/Second Amendment Foundation member
NAHC life member/KECA founding committee member
-
September 18th, 2010, 09:42 PM #2
Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns
This is all I got from your link.
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.Sed ego sum homo indomitus
-
September 18th, 2010, 09:54 PM #3
-
September 19th, 2010, 01:43 PM #4Banned
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Location
-
Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania
(Dauphin County) - Posts
- 1,889
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns
It looks to me like the judges here had a conclusion they wanted to come to, and pieced together the cases and explanation to fit. What they have done here is not some faithful deference to Supreme Court findings; these lower courts do not have to wait for SCOTUS to give us a right before they can recognize it as well. How can we tell this court is from the start less than honest about its intentions? It grabs the meaningless dicta from Heller and McDonald which becomes not only a preface but the excuse for their finding.
In considering the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3), we
begin with the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in
Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct 3020
(2010). Although the Court concluded that the Second
Amendment preserves “the individual right to possess
and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 128
S. Ct. at 2797, that right is not unlimited. The Court has
since admonished that Heller “did not cast doubt on
such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions
on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
ill.’ ” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047 (quoting Heller, 128 S. Ct.
at 2816-17). Heller’s footnote 26 underscores that at least
these two categorical bans are “presumptively lawful.”
Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817 n.26. The Court declined to
further elaborate on the full extent of the Second Amendment’s
reach, noting that “there will be time enough to
expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions
come before us.” Id. at 2821. With this case, we
move beyond those exceptions to a different, but equally
defensible, categorical ban.
As I read through the opinion I could feels its emptyness, its lack of substance. These judges could stand the read the admonishment that I posted at http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...ml#post1334300 from time to time.
As for the only thing they really got right, they characterized the ban here as a transient one that only exists as long as the contemporaneous use/abuse (since they never like to be clear) occurs while (physically?) possessing firearms, and duly cited United States v. Augustin,
376 F.3d 135, 139 (3d Cir. 2004).
Just another day's work in the disgusting life of modern America...
-
September 19th, 2010, 02:22 PM #5Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
-
nashville,
Tennessee
- Posts
- 237
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns
Alcoholics Anonymous say, "once an alcoholic always an alcoholic." I wonder if that court would condone going to AA meetings, writing everyone's name down and putting them on a list in order to prevent them from owning guns forever? Once an addict always an addict. Are they going to take someone's word? Is there testing? Monitoring? Questioning neighbors? Time frame? One month or ten years? Is the requirement going to equal across the States?
What about "Congress enacted the exclusions in § 922(g) to keep
guns out of the hands of presumptively risky people. See
Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 112 n.6
(1983); see also S. REP. NO. 90-1501, at 22 (1968) (“The
ready availability, that is, the ease with which any
person can anonymously acquire firearms (including
criminals, juveniles without the consent of their parents
or guardians, narcotic addicts, mental defectives, armed
groups who would supplant duly constituted public
authorities, and others whose possession of firearms is
similarly contrary to the public interest) is a matter of
serious national concern.”). The broad objective of
§ 922(g)—suppressing armed violence—is without doubt
an important one, see Williams, 2010 WL 3035483, at *6,
Skoien, 2010 WL 2735747, at *3,..."
If this court had their way anyone could be denied a gun based upon being a member of a "radical" group that believes the constitution authorizes an uprising in the event of tyrany.
Makes one consider the meaning of "shall not be infringed."
-
September 19th, 2010, 03:35 PM #6Banned
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Location
-
Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania
(Dauphin County) - Posts
- 1,889
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns
". . . enacted the exclusions . . . to keep guns out of the hands of presumptively risky people[, like] armed groups who would supplant duly constituted public authorities . . . "
I think England felt the same way just a few centuries ago; that's why they were disarming the colonists, right? "possession of firearms is
similarly contrary to the public interest"? "a matter of serious national concern"?
How can so many be so willfully blind to the greatest concern that prompts enumeration of the right to keep and bear arms?
-
September 19th, 2010, 03:50 PM #7Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
-
nashville,
Tennessee
- Posts
- 237
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Seventh Circuit upholds federal law prohibiting drug users from possessing guns
1. They are not taught the constitution.
2. They do not know why the the Bill of Rights was written.
3. They've been told for years that they don't need guns because the police will protect them.
4. They've been told guns should only be used for sporting and hunting.
5. They don't care.
Similar Threads
-
10th Circuit Upholds Okla. ban on employer bans on firearms.
By PeteG in forum NationalReplies: 70Last Post: December 19th, 2011, 05:11 PM -
Reports of drug and alcohol users walking through multiple rounds
By pandemic in forum GeneralReplies: 15Last Post: August 22nd, 2009, 06:59 AM -
U.S. Guns Arming Mexican Drug Gangs; Second Amendment to Blame?
By Gary in Pennsylvania in forum GeneralReplies: 3Last Post: April 22nd, 2008, 05:22 PM
Bookmarks