“But the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports,” said Wyrick, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. In his ruling, Wyrick highlighted that under Oklahoma law, marijuana can be bought legally at more than 2,000 store fronts in the state.
Attorneys for Harrison, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting the case, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Sunday.
And broken out from the ruling by BRM,(bold mine)
"The first caveat, that the prohibition on possession by a felon be longstanding, makes sense. If not for this limitation, a legislature could circumvent the Second Amendment by deeming every crime, no matter how minor, a felony, so as to deprive as many of its citizens of their right to possess a firearm as possible. Imagine a world where the State of New York, to end-run the adverse judgment it received in Bruen, could make mowing one’s lawn a felony so that it could then strip all its newly deemed “felons” of their right to possess a firearm. The label “felony” is simply “too easy for legislatures and prosecutors to manipulate.”
Remarkably, when presented with this lawn-mowing hypothetical argument, and asked if such an approach would be consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said “yes.” So, in the federal government’s view, a state or the federal government could deem anything at all a felony and then strip those convicted of that felony—no matter how innocuous the conduct—of their fundamental right to possess a firearm. Why? Because courts must defer to a legislature’s judgments about what is and is not a felony, says the United States. It’s as if Bruen’s command regarding the inappropriateness of such deference to legislative judgments has been lost in translation. In a sense, one must applaud the United States for its steadfast commitment to its legal position. But “giv[ing] legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label” is inconsistent with the entire point of constitutionalizing a fundamental right in the first place: to restrain a legislature’s ability to infringe that right through legislation. What would remain of the Second Amendment if the Court were to accept the United States’ view that a legislature could prohibit the exercise of the right it protects simply by declaring anything or everything a felony? Nothing. Maybe that is what the federal government desires, but it is hardly what the Constitution requires.
Remarkably, when presented with this lawn-mowing hypothetical argument, and asked if such an approach would be consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said “yes.” So, in the federal government’s view, a state or the federal government could deem anything at all a felony and then strip those convicted of that felony—no matter how innocuous the conduct—of their fundamental right to possess a firearm. Why? Because courts must defer to a legislature’s judgments about what is and is not a felony, says the United States. It’s as if Bruen’s command regarding the inappropriateness of such deference to legislative judgments has been lost in translation. In a sense, one must applaud the United States for its steadfast commitment to its legal position. But “giv[ing] legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label” is inconsistent with the entire point of constitutionalizing a fundamental right in the first place: to restrain a legislature’s ability to infringe that right through legislation. What would remain of the Second Amendment if the Court were to accept the United States’ view that a legislature could prohibit the exercise of the right it protects simply by declaring anything or everything a felony? Nothing. Maybe that is what the federal government desires, but it is hardly what the Constitution requires.
Let's see, 'giving legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label' just doesn't cut it. Oh, I think that is going to become a real important line.
3 comments:
The criminals in power mean to rule us. That requires they disarm us. By whatever means required. They will either simply ignore court rulings or replace honest judges with their leftist rubber stamp puppets. Probably a combination of both. There can be no coexistence with them. Either they enslave us, murdering many of us or we exterminate them. There is no third option. TINVOWOOT You can vote your way into socialism/communism but you will always be forced to fight your way out,..with lethal force. And THEY own the voting machinery.
The last time I saw Democrats acting like this, it was because SCOTUS had told them to de-segregate their schools.
Maybe not, if it goes to the Supreme Court. The Supremes already said something about this in Tennessee v Garner (1985) when they said the cops couldn't shoot a fleeing person unless they feared a serious threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others.
Before this, cops could shoot you if you were running away if you were suspected of committing a felony, which under old English Common Law carried the death penalty anyway. The idea that a person suspected of a felony who refused to surrender can be considered a threat to life and killed if he flees. The Supremes said that didn't hold water in the modern world.
Of import, the Supreme Court wrote:
"Neither of these justifications makes sense today. Almost all crimes formerly punishable by death no longer are or can be. And while in earlier times "the gulf between the felonies and the minor
offences was broad and deep," today the distinction
is minor and often arbitrary. Many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies.
These changes have undermined the concept, which was questionable to begin with, that use of deadly force against a fleeing felon is merely a speedier execution of someone who has already forfeited his
life. They have also made the assumption that a "felon" is more dangerous than a misdemeanant untenable. Indeed, numerous misdemeanors involve conduct more dangerous than many felonies."
So, if push comes to shove, I suspect the Supreme Court may recognize that using the term "felony" to create a fig leaf over unreasonable gun confiscation can't be done and be consistent with Tenn v Garner.
Post a Comment