Posted on 06/24/2019 3:54:18 PM PDT by SMGFan
- A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal law requiring longer prison sentences for using a gun during a "crime of violence" is unconstitutionally vague.
The court voted 5-4 stating the law "provides no reliable way" to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion on behalf of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
"In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all," Gorsuch wrote. "Only the people's elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws. And when Congress exercises that power, it has to write statutes that give ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them."
The case presented to the Supreme Court involved two men -- Maurice Davis and Andre Glover -- who were convicted of several robbery charges and another federal statute that required increased mandatory minimum sentences for a "crime of violence."
Under the law, they would have faced a mandatory sentence of five years, with the possibility to increase it to seven years if a gun was brandished and 10 years if a gun was fired.
Gorsuch's opinion stated that Congress should have explicitly included criminal convictions such as robbery in the statute if it was meant to be applied to them.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion, labeling the ruling an "extraordinary event" and warned the impact could be "severe" and possibly "thwart Congress' law enforcement policies, destabilize the criminal justice system and undermine safety in American communities"
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Until one of them gets a bullet...
I agree with this decision.
Rob a store go to jail.
It should matter whether the thief uses a gun or breaks in after hours.
I did a search , the previous post has “unconstitutionally g “ headline . /s
Using a gun isn’t self-evident of an act of violence?
Hmmm, trying to figure out how discharging a weapon in an uncalled for circumstance doesn’t elevate the crime to one of an act of violence, even if no one is shot.
If anyone is injured, it would be a crime of violence.
At any rate, that’s how I see it.
that should have vague
I sure hope he has the same view when it comes to Federal Regulations.
ML/NJ
would that the Stupid SOCTUS could make a distinction regarding “hate crime’
It’s Congress’ fault though that our laws are vague. A lot of the Federal Register wouldn’t be necessary if our laws weren’t so vague in the first place.
I think that there is a traditional category called “armed robbery” that already captures that one.
Feds have no business charging robberies anyway, IMO. They should be specifically a state matter. They have perverted the commerce clause into creating a multitude of federal crimes that should be handled at the state level.
I agree we have a problem with ‘piling on’ - extraneous charges to make the consequences higher, & maybe make it easier to get a plea deal.
On the other hand, committing a robbery is one crime. If you injure or kill the victim physically in the act the consequences should certainly be higher. A tough one to call.
Next to go - “hate crmes”......
I do have a problem with some of these special classification crimes like ‘hate crimes’.
If you’re shooting someone, does it matter why? If they die, it’s murder. If they don’t, it’s attempted murder.
The penalties for that should be sufficient.
Seems to me this one was always twisted so that certain groups could never be charged with a ‘hate crime’, so it became a racial issue all on it’s own.
Best to stay away from things like that.
To be fair, the gun does not have to be discharged or even displayed during the crime to fall afoul of this law. It on;y has to be present.
I’m of two minds on this decision - on the one hand, the law does cut down on thuggery to a small degree. On the other hand, people have been charged and sentenced unfairly under this law too. Remember, “crime of violence” is not defined and some states interpret “crime of violence” as anything down to “destruction of property” - i.e., accidentally mowing down a mailbox with your car.
Gorsuch may not know it, but one benefit of this law was that the feds could prosecute criminals in Lahood when the locals, including judges, simply will not, due to their ‘social justice’ crusade.
Lots of criminals are celebrating tonight.
There is also the charge of “felon in possession of firearm” which is one of the most underutilized charges but carries up to 10 years in jail and $100K in fines as penalties, IIRC.
Felon in possession is still a Federal crime and is what should have been charged.
Thanks. I’m sure there are other instances of mis-characterization too.
We hold this truth to be self-evident, if a weapon is brandished or worse, it’s a crime of violence. Duh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.