United States v. Davis

Inigoes · Jan 7, 2019

18-431 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS, MAURICE L., ET AL.

The motions of respondents for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis are granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is
granted.

Issue: Whether the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime, is unconstitutionally vague.

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

Allen65 · Jan 7, 2019

Is the petioner pro se?

esqappellate · Jan 7, 2019

Allen65 said:
Is the petioner pro se?

Petitioner is the United States. The respondent is represented by counsel. Respondent is just poor.

Allen65 · Jan 7, 2019

esqappellate said:
Petitioner is the United States. The respondent is represented by counsel. Respondent is just poor.

Sorry, confused petitioner w/respondent. I was just wondering if he couldn't afford court fees, was he able to afford an attorney.

Inigoes · Feb 20, 2019

SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Inigoes · Apr 18, 2019

Argument was held yesterday.

The Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/18-431_6j37.pdf

motorcoachdoug · Apr 18, 2019

Very Interesting reading hmmmmm

danb · Apr 18, 2019

transcript is confusing. This summary is better: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/argument-analysis-the-last-johnson-domino-to-fall/

fidelity · Jul 2, 2019

I haven't read what Kavanaugh wrote in the minority opinion that supported stronger sentencing for those committing federal crimes while possessing a firearm, but the suggestion below that he made his argument using "gun violence" statistics will motivate me to find it later. Hope that he doesn't have some antigun clerks working for him ...

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/02/737725994/6-takeaways-from-a-consequential-supreme-court-term

In United States v. Davis, Gorsuch wrote the decision for himself and the liberal justices, striking down as too vague a statute that imposes a mandatory and lengthy prison term for anyone who carries a firearm in connection with certain federal crimes, as the law did not specify which crimes carry this extra and severe penalty.

Gorsuch opened the opinion declaring, "In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all," because ordinary people have no way to tell "what consequences will attach to their conduct." Kavanaugh, in contrast, wrote the dissenting opinion with a litany of statistics about gun violence.

danb · Jul 2, 2019

Advocating harsher sentences or enforcement of existing laws (such as those mandating tougher sentences for use of a firearm in crime) has been the conservative creed for decades. Citing "gun violence" statistics does not worry me or indicate anti-gun bias.

fidelity · Jul 2, 2019

danb said:
Advocating harsher sentences or enforcement of existing laws (such as those mandating tougher sentences for use of a firearm in crime) has been the conservative creed for decades. Citing "gun violence" statistics does not worry me or indicate anti-gun bias.

I realize this, but Gorsuch was making the argument for which federal crimes would this hold. For instance, if a concealed carrier travels from state A to B carrying a loaded firearm, and was mistaken about his/her legality to carry in state B, has this transport violated federal law? I don't know, but I can see situations where a vague statute hurts gun owners.

As per Kavanaugh, which gun violence statistics were used to buttress his argument, how they were used, and if he indeed used the term "gun violence" was used is of interest to me, especially as he doesn't have the same record of 2A advocacy as say Thomas.

We've seen what might be a more permanent move of Roberts into a swing vote position on the court, and this has been after considerable pressure on him in the media. Kavanaugh has been under worse pressure. Maybe, like Thomas, it will fortify his beliefs, but he could go the other way too, to show he's friendly on issues important to women (and construe this includes gun control).

danb · Jul 2, 2019

Choose the anti-gunners from this line-up:

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined as to all but Part II-C

Bob A · Jul 2, 2019

fidelity said:
Kavanaugh has been under worse pressure. Maybe, like Thomas, it will fortify his beliefs, but he could go the other way too, to show he's friendly on issues important to women (and construe this includes gun control).

That would be particularly disappointing. His job is not to play politics; that's exactly why the SCOTUS appointment is for life. Deal with the law - the supreme law of the land; the rest is up to the other branches.

fidelity · Jul 2, 2019

danb said:
Choose the anti-gunners from this line-up:

Cute, but you're eliding the point. It's not decision that I'm necessarily questioning; it's NPR approvingly mentioning the use of gun violence statistics that Kavanaugh used in putting forward part of his argument. I want to know what they meant by this. Trust but verify.

Bob A said:
That would be particularly disappointing. His job is not to play politics; that's exactly why the SCOTUS appointment is for life. Deal with the law - the supreme law of the land; the rest is up to the other branches.

I heard the Gun Control act of 1968 being cited as helping to drive firearm related crime down, but there are likely components of the act that I don't know about.

Eta: I took a look and didn't see anything obvious re gun violence statistics that the NPR article mentions, other than Kavanaugh mentioning gun control legislation signed by Johnson (1968) and then Reagan that created stiffer penalties for violent crimes committed with firearms and correlated with reduced firearm-related crime.

danb · Jul 2, 2019

fidelity said:
Cute, but you're eliding the point. It's not decision that I'm necessarily questioning; it's NPR approvingly mentioning the use of gun violence statistics that Kavanaugh used in putting forward part of his argument. I want to know what they meant by this. Trust but verify.

I heard the Gun Control act of 1968 being approvingly cited as helping to drive firearm related crime down, but there are likely components of the act that I don't know about.

Not really. I just don't take anything I hear on NPR too seriously, let alone stuff I hear second hand. Thomas and Alito joined Kavanaugh, so even if I read nothing else I feel pretty sure Alito and Thomas would not sign on to some interest balancing related to gun violence. So whatever NPR says would not even pass the smell test. But that is not too surprising.

This case has absolutely positively nothing to do with the 2A, no matter the spin NPR puts on it. Kavanaugh was merely summarizing the history of the crime waves in the 60s and 80s that led to the 1990s tough-on-crime bills at issue in this line of cases, thats all. "establishment" conservatives Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh all its ok, because "tough on crime". Libertarian Gorsuch thinks it violates due process. Honestly, I am not particularly swayed by either the majority or the dissent here.

I think mainly, the dissent is trying to draw the line to prevent more tough-on-crime statues from being struck.

fidelity · Jul 2, 2019

danb said:
Not really. I just don't take anything I hear on NPR too seriously, let alone stuff I hear second hand. Thomas and Alito joined Kavanaugh, so even if I read nothing else I feel pretty sure Alito and Thomas would not sign on to some interest balancing related to gun violence. So whatever NPR says would not even pass the smell test. But that is not too surprising.

This case has absolutely positively nothing to do with the 2A, no matter the spin NPR puts on it. Kavanaugh was merely summarizing the history of the crime waves in the 60s and 80s that led to the 1990s tough-on-crime bills at issue in this line of cases, thats all. "establishment" conservatives Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh all its ok, because "tough on crime". Libertarian Gorsuch thinks it violates due process. Honestly, I am not particularly swayed by either the majority or the dissent here.

I updated my prior post almost simultaneous to what you have written above.

Note, Kavanaugh has used the term "gun violence" in the past, distinguishing it from criminal violence, during his SC nomination hearings. Possibly a slip of the tongue, or trying to speak the language of those questioning him.

danb · Jul 2, 2019

fidelity said:
I updated my prior post almost simultaneous to what you have written above.

Yeah, I am totally shocked to find NPR put anti-gun spin on story where there really was nothing.

United States v. Davis

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

piled higher and deeper

dont be a dumbass

piled higher and deeper

dont be a dumbass

όυ φροντισ

piled higher and deeper

dont be a dumbass

piled higher and deeper

dont be a dumbass

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics