Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 13th, 2019, 07:34 PM #1
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,353
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,353
Miller v. Sessions (E.District PA)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=2&as_sdt=6,49

Court finds USC 18 922 (g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Miller. The introduction is great:

This action is about one citizen's individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The citizen wishes to purchase and possess a firearm. The Government contends that under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the citizen is permanently banned from possessing a firearm because of a 1998 misdemeanor conviction under the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. The citizen challenges the federal statute as unconstitutional as applied to him. The citizen wins.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2019, 08:17 PM #2
ToolAA's Avatar
ToolAA ToolAA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Ellicott City
Posts: 4,083
ToolAA ToolAA is offline
Senior Member
ToolAA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Ellicott City
Posts: 4,083
Pretty interesting read. Basically the case was won by disputing the severity of his previous misdemeanor conviction. Specific citing that his crime was non-violent in nature as a basis for relief.
__________________
Honorable people with a good work ethic and strong character have shaped our communities and nation more so than presidents and congressmen. The crisis of character we see in our political leaders is a symptom of our nation's sickness not the cause for the disease.
ToolAA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2019, 07:23 AM #3
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,131
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,131
Good ruling. These misdemeanor violations acting as a lifetime prohibitor are simply wrong and misapplied. Even though it was 'as-applied' to this plaintiff, it will be good precedent for folks in that jurisdiction.
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2019, 09:16 AM #4
FrankOceanXray's Avatar
FrankOceanXray FrankOceanXray is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,718
FrankOceanXray FrankOceanXray is offline
Senior Member
FrankOceanXray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam View Post
Good ruling. These misdemeanor violations acting as a lifetime prohibitor are simply wrong and misapplied. Even though it was 'as-applied' to this plaintiff, it will be good precedent for folks in that jurisdiction.
How do those folks in similar situations learn about this and apply for the same relief? Creating a wave affect... ?

At what point does this ruling simply apply to all in the area without need for application, court cases? When can the law reflect this change, from area, to region to state to federal?
FrankOceanXray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2019, 12:48 PM #5
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,353
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankOceanXray View Post
How do those folks in similar situations learn about this and apply for the same relief? Creating a wave affect... ?

At what point does this ruling simply apply to all in the area without need for application, court cases? When can the law reflect this change, from area, to region to state to federal?
I assume Congress has to act and clarify the statute to where non violent felons are excluded from the prohibition.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2019, 03:51 AM #6
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,353
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,353
The Middle District of PA has put out a contradictory opinion in this case where a guy is a prohibited person due to receiving stolen property valued between 600 and 1200 dollars in 1976: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=2&as_sdt=6,49
Let's see if both these cases get appealed to the 3rd Circuit.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2019, 09:29 AM #7
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,353
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,353
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=2&as_sdt=6,49

And now the ED of PA has ruled against a plaintiff who filed a false income tax return 7 years ago. Same firm representing this plaintiff as the other plaintiff who won in the same district court.

This will have to be ironed out by the 3rd circuit.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service