Supreme Court agrees to decide gun ownership case

[Objee]

A ruling is due by the end of June. The case is Henderson v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1487.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/20/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN0I91X220141020

 

[Inigoes]

Thank you

 

[press1280]

Not a 2A case though........

 

[Inigoes]

It does ask an important question: Does the government have the right to seize your property (guns) after you are convicted without reimbursing you for the fair market value?

 

[240 towles]

Heres some interesting notes.

"U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the government, said in court papers there was no need for the Supreme Court to hear the case, in part because Henderson could have sold the guns prior to his conviction."

Absolute nonsense, There was no lawful obligation for him to sell his firearms until he was convicted, furthermore, there is always a chance he could win a not guilty verdict in either the trial in question, or at an appellate trial.


"

Furthermore, Henderson's proposals would have put the guns in the hands of either his wife or a friend, which "created a significant risk" that he would still retain access to them, Verrilli wrote."

Tough, that's not the law. If his wife is allowed to lawfully possess firearms, then you are not allowed to restrict her 2A rights. If he violates the law by touching the firearms and is caught, he goes to prison. If she supplies them, she can also be charged, but there is no basis for unlawful seizure without compensation or disposition.

 

[Peaceful John]

From Reuters article:

SNIP John Elwood, Henderson's attorney, said in court filings that if the appeals court ruling against him were to be left intact, it would allow the government to "effectively strip gun owners of their entire ownership interest in significant, lawful household assets following a conviction for an unrelated offense." SNIP

It seems almost like this could address 2A scrutiny, doesn't it?

 

[Peaceful John]

From Reuters article:

SNIP John Elwood, Henderson's attorney, said in court filings that if the appeals court ruling against him were to be left intact, it would allow the government to "effectively strip gun owners of their entire ownership interest in significant, lawful household assets following a conviction for an unrelated offense." SNIP

It seems almost like this could go to 2A scrutiny, doesn't it?

 

[krucam]

The briefs of the Petition phase are available on ScotusBlog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/henderson-v-united-states-2/

 

[Vile Shadow]

As long as the guns are out of the house, and not with relatives, that should be sufficient.

 

[trickg]

As long as the guns are out of the house, and not with relatives, that should be sufficient.

How does that figure? Why should a non-felon be restricted and punished because they live with, or are married to a felon? She wouldn't be (or shouldn't be) restricted from buying and keeping a gun on her own, so why would it matter who legally owned them prior to his conviction?

It's an interesting case and I'm curious to see how they rule on it.

 

[montoya32]

I see this as an opportunity of the courts to muff it again. Would a trust avoid this entire debate? If convicted, shouldn't their be an opportunity to conform to the restrictions of the conviction?

You can't tell someone that you were found guilty, now gimme your property. The argument that he has sufficient time to sell prior to his conviction is bullsh*t. So if you are charged with a crime and awaiting court, you should sell your belongings in anticipation of becoming a felon?

 

[Vile Shadow]

How does that figure? Why should a non-felon be restricted and punished because they live with, or are married to a felon? She wouldn't be (or shouldn't be) restricted from buying and keeping a gun on her own, so why would it matter who legally owned them prior to his conviction?

My point was that the felon cannot have access to the guns. If they're in the house, then the felon has access to them.

 

[trickg]

My point was that the felon cannot have access to the guns. If they're in the house, then the felon has access to them.

But again, how is that the fault of any non-felon who lives in the house? Are you saying that they can't own guns if they live with a felon? That would definitely be an infringement upon their 2nd amendment rights, which probably also violates their right to privacy.

 

[Vile Shadow]

But again, how is that the fault of any non-felon who lives in the house? Are you saying that they can't own guns if they live with a felon? That would definitely be an infringement upon their 2nd amendment rights, which probably also violates their right to privacy.

Well, what would be the standard of proof for the gun owning spouse of a prohibited felon to show that his/her significant other would not have access to their firearms?

How would you prove that to a degree acceptable to the gooberment, beyond not having them in the house?

 

[smokey]

My point was that the felon cannot have access to the guns. If they're in the house, then the felon has access to them.

The guns are in a safe, her husband doesn't have the combo...now what happens?

 

[smokey]

Well, what would be the standard of proof for the gun owning spouse of a prohibited felon to show that his/her significant other would not have access to their firearms?

How would you prove that to a degree acceptable to the gooberment, beyond not having them in the house?

How does the burden fall on this? If things worked as they should, the burden would be on the state to prove that he DOES have access, not on her to prove they do not.

 

[Brooklyn]

Well, what would be the standard of proof for the gun owning spouse of a prohibited felon to show that his/her significant other would not have access to their firearms?

How would you prove that to a degree acceptable to the gooberment, beyond not having them in the house?

No standard of proof is required. This is were standard of review may creep in. Can the government impose a restriction on a 3rd party based on the status of another. Why? What if that other is just a next door neighbor? How about 2 doors down?. Is a spouse banned but a friend OK? On what basis? They could uphold the ban and set a standard that is much more limiting then the government wants. Or they could overturn finding no such ban passes any standard or review.

Its not our job to prove to the government that a right will not be abused. That's why its a right.

 

[Vile Shadow]

The guns are in a safe, her husband doesn't have the combo...now what happens?

Realistically speaking, if they're married, then the husband has the combination to that safe.

How does the burden fall on this? If things worked as they should, the burden would be on the state to prove that he DOES have access, not on her to prove they do not.

That's true. But in the real world it doesn't work that way, disgusting as that may be.

I think if things did work as you say in all cases, there would be no NFA.

 

[Vile Shadow]

No standard of proof is required. This is were standard of review may creep in. Can the government impose a restriction on a 3rd party based on the status of another. Why? What if that other is just a next door neighbor? How about 2 doors down?. Is a spouse banned but a friend OK? On what basis? They could uphold the ban and set a standard that is much more limiting then the government wants. Or they could overturn finding no such ban passes any standard or review.

I was always under the impression that firearms and felons could not be under the same roof, regardless of relation.

Its not our job to prove to the government that a right will not be abused. That's why its a right.

I get that. But if the gooberment weren't allowed to balloon to the size that it has, there would be no need for this discussion. Problem is, once the genie is out of the bottle it's damn near impossible to get it back inside.

 

[trickg]

I get that. But if the gooberment weren't allowed to balloon to the size that it has, there would be no need for this discussion. Problem is, once the genie is out of the bottle it's damn near impossible to get it back inside.

Well, we definitely agree on that.