Daily Archives: June 29, 2017

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington, D.C.s ban on handgun possession unconstitutionally infringed on Second Amendment rights. Yet a District law prohibiting with few exceptions ammunition in residents homes lingers on the books.

What good is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense if you cannot have ammunition? How can residents look to the law to understand what conduct is and is not illegal? Should they follow the statutes? The court? Get confused and forgo their rights?

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that if a statute is in opposition to the Constitution, the Constitution must govern.

Following that principle, the criminal code reform commission established by the City Council has reviewed the districts criminal laws and identified two statutes Unlawful Possession of Ammunition (D.C. Code 7-2506.01) and Alteration of Identifying Marks of Weapons (D.C. Code 22-4512) as being unconstitutional.

The commissions findings rest on two cases in D.C. courts: Herrington v. United States and Reid v. United States.

In Herrington, the trial court had ruled that all the government needs to prove to obtain [an unlawful possession of ammunition] conviction are that the defendant possessed ammunition, and that he did so knowingly and intentionally. The D.C. Court of Appeals disagreed, writing, a flat ban on the possession of handgun ammunition in the home is not just incompatible with the Second Amendment, but clearly so.

Yet it ruled that the government may convict a defendant of unlawful possession of ammunition if it also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not lawfully registered a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses.

The commissions report identifies the statute as unconstitutional but advises lawmakers to cure that by amending the law to incorporate the courts ruling.

The second offense makes it a crime to alter or obliterate a firearms serial number. The commissions report observes that the law also permits a jury to infer that a person who possesses a weapon with obliterated markings is the same person who did, in fact, obliterate those markings.

In Reid, the D.C. Court of Appeals recognized that individuals might unknowingly acquire weapons with previously obliterated markings, and that, therefore, the presumption of guilt in the statute is fundamentally unfair and violates due process.

Thirty-four years later, commissioners are just now advising lawmakers to bring the law up to date with the U.S. Constitution.

The commissioners give three reasons why lawmakers should no longer delay updating D.C. firearms laws:

1) to ensure respect for the peoples constitutional rights;

2) to clarify to the general public what precisely constitutes an offense; and

3) to guide practitioners in the future.

For the same reasons, other states should review their criminal codes to ensure that Second Amendment rights, and other constitutional provisions, are protected.

As the Supreme Court stated in McBoyle v. United States in 1931, and had recognized long before that, fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.

In Heller, the Court wrote that the Second Amendment bears no secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applies to the states.

The D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission represents a step in the right direction. It has provided a straightforward methodology for reviewing criminal laws in the interest of protecting constitutional rights. It is an approach that all cities and states should consider taking.

See the original post here:
Second Amendment Violations Targeted by Criminal Code Experts - Heritage.org

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided against hearing a case involving the right to carry a firearm outside of one's home. California resident Edward Peruta had challenged a state lawlimiting gun-carrying permits to those showing "good cause." Simply mentioning self-defense is not enough - San Diego policy requires residents to list specific threats they believe they're facing.

Although the right to carry has been a hot topic across the country, Peruta v. California did not interest at least four of the justices, so it will not be added to their docket at this time.

That really peeved off Justices Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the bench.

The Second Amendments core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry, Thomas wrote. Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.

Thomas went on to say that he and his colleagues are too removed from everyday American life to understand why this case is so important.

"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it," Thomas added.

Newest Justice Neil Gorsuch joined on to Thomas's opinion.

Without the chance to be heard at the Supreme Court, the lower court rulings stands. In a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the San Diego restrictions were permissible.

New Requirements for Visa Holders as Partial Travel Ban Goes Into Effect

Read the rest here:
Justice Thomas Chides Colleagues for Ignoring Second Amendment Case - Townhall

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

The aforementioned amendments are clear, at least to those without an agenda.

We offer these amendments to show the lack of logic regarding the decision this week by the U.S. Supreme Court not to consider a challenge to a law in California which restricts the constitutional rights of Americans to carry a gun. California has what it called a good cause law, which means California residents must convince the state they have a valid reason to carry a concealed weapon.

Here is the problem, which is clearly evident when reading the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. In other words, it is not a right that is left up to individual states to recognize as they see fit.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The right of Americans to keep and bear arms is specifically a delegated power, which means states do not have the authority to gut the Second Amendment.

Californias law makes little sense anyway, regardless of the U.S. Constitution.

As of February, there were at least 11 states which had passed legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons without a permit. If the fears of those who want to destroy the Second Amendment are accurate, these 11 states should be a battleground. For the record, the state of Texas has had a concealed carry law for more than 20 years, and has had an open carry law since 2016. The Lone Star State has not returned to the stereotypical days of the wild west, when residents settled disputes with a shootout at high noon on Main Street.

Evidently, Californians cannot be trusted with firearms as much as residents of other states. (Sarcasm noted.)

What states such as California are doing is taking it upon themselves to determine how their residents exercise their constitutional rights contained in the Second Amendment. And a hodgepodge of gun laws based on the whims of the states ignores the Second Amendment.

The rest is here:
Editorial: Target the US Constitution - Amarillo.com