Jump to content

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down stiff firearms penalties


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Looking for more details:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns/u-s-supreme-court-strikes-down-stiff-firearms-penalties-idUSKCN1TP1YR

 

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the U.S. Supreme Court’s four liberal members on Monday in striking down as unconstitutionally vague a law imposing stiff criminal sentences for people convicted of certain crimes involving firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This?

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-davis/

 

Holding: Title 18 U. S. C. §924©(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a crime of violence, is unconstitutionally vague.

 

Judgment: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 24, 2019. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined, and in which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to all but Part II-C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this is more a technical ruling on the black and white text then a liberal vs conservative ideology, the court basically said "crime of violence" wasn't properly defined in the law.

 

I don't agree with the ideology of the ruling but I support the ruling that the law was vague because at the end of the day what crime with a firearm can't be argued to be a crime of violence? There was no distinct line drawn in the law as written that defined at what point the extra sentencing was invoked and that left it open to vague interpretations.

 

It's a fairly easy law to revise, but I doubt the House will pass a revision based on their majority ideologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a simple fix when the law was adopted - just specify the specific crimes that were covered by the enhanced penalty - for instance armed robbery. But, as usual, Congress was lazy and tried to take the easy way out and just say "crime of violence" and leave it to a judge as to whether the crime at issue in this case was a crime of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't the crimes of violence listed in 18 USC 921? When I was writing my Utah CFP course several years ago I went through all of the federal statutes because I'm required to discuss the federal laws. Iirc, unlawfully using a machine gun while illegally transporting illegal drugs comes to mind as one of them.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this is more a technical ruling on the black and white text then a liberal vs conservative ideology, the court basically said "crime of violence" wasn't properly defined in the law.

 

I don't agree with the ideology of the ruling but I support the ruling that the law was vague because at the end of the day what crime with a firearm can't be argued to be a crime of violence? There was no distinct line drawn in the law as written that defined at what point the extra sentencing was invoked and that left it open to vague interpretations.

 

It's a fairly easy law to revise, but I doubt the House will pass a revision based on their majority ideologies.

 

^^^ This. I actually have no problem with the holding, and I wish some of the other conservatives would have signed on. As a practical matter, if the government is going to hold you criminally responsible for something, you ought to know with specificity what the penalties are. This is one area where IL has gotten it right (one of not very many), in that they spell out which crimes constitute acts of violence. I may not agree with all of the IL laws, but at least they are specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't the crimes of violence listed in 18 USC 921?

 

Yes, but vaguely to the point where it's not really defined at all.

 

Here is the ruling

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-431_7758.pdf

 

I think @ilphil is dead on after reading the ruling it's pretty obvious by the language in the ruling that this is the Supreme Court slapping Congres around and telling them to stop being lazy in their authorship of laws.

 

 

 

I wish some of the other conservatives would have signed on.

 

I agree, the dissenters let their ideals get in the way of simply legally interpreting the black and white text as written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this effect previous convictions under this unconstitutionally vague law.

 

It appears this will be decided on a case to case basis upon appeal.

 

 

 

While the dissent worries that our ruling
may elicit challenges to past §924© convictions, post, at
33, the dissent’s preferred approach—saving §924©(3)(B)
by changing its meaning—would also call into question
countless convictions premised on the categorical reading.
And defendants whose §924© convictions are overturned
by virtue of today’s ruling will not even necessarily receive
lighter sentences: As this Court has noted, when a defend-
ant’s §924© conviction is invalidated, courts of appeals
“routinely” vacate the defendant’s entire sentence on all
counts “so that the district court may increase the sentences
for any remaining counts” if such an increase is
warranted. Dean v. United States, 581 U. S. ___, ___
(2017) (slip op., at 5).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...