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 ...
Absotively.
Yes, this is a bad SCROTUS ruling.
There was one case a few years ago where someone robbed a store with a knife and the store clerk had a pistol but didn’t use it.
The robber was charged under this statute. There was a firearm present. Dunno about you, but despite the visceral “he deserved it” reaction, academically that’s not right as the robber didn’t bring the firearm, use the firearm or ever have custody or possession of the firearm - or even touch it.
The law is too vague. It should specifically list the crimes that it applies to and the conditions under which the presence of a firearm triggers the sentencing.
Gorsuch + the 4 liberal, you mean.
Don’t forget the liberal interpretation of domestic ‘violence’ to be pretty much anything ! (And therefore you can’t have a fun)
I see that as an issue of judicial interpretation. A judge failed to rule on the nonsensical claim.
The presence of a knife does strike me as a possible classification instigator. (If the law sites the need for a gun to be involved, I would be wrong of course, but the robber would need to be the person who introduced it.)
I do agree with your take on the situation you mentioned.
No intent to carry or use a gun does not qualify on the basis of a gun present > IMO.
The law in question specifically requires a firearm to trigger. It is silent on knives, clubs, etc., etc. - it’s just firearms.
Thanks. Seems that way to me.
>
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? Why are they OUT of prison, being a ‘felon’??
If you mean EX-felon (aka Citizen...w/ all privileges & Rights thereof), they you’re supporting TIERS of Citizens...and the U.S. ain’t India w/ castes.
“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.”
And the feds could also prosecute you for “hate” crimes if you punched someone while calling him a name. Does that get your heart all a-flutter?
Thanks for the mention.
I concur.
Vague law is no law at all.
Lots more of these vague laws to get rid of. This is a good start.
Felon
a person who has been convicted of a felony
Once a felon — always a felon
Gorsuch is right.
Laws need to be specific. They purposefully make them vague so they can be selectively enforced. Get on the lawmakers to fix it.
Yep. Gorsuch is a great pick. He will be the only consistent judge on this one.
I have to agree with the decision and the opinion. As other posts have pointed out, hate crimes are even more vague, at least with this law, you had to have a recognizable object. With hate crimes ideas, vapors, gestures, expressions, and clothing can prove a "hate" crime.
This decision is a good start.
#9. You got it right. Congress often deliberately writes vague laws so that they can’t get blamed for what the courts decide.
So much for a conservative supreme court.
A crime of violence?
Hey, Gorsuch. How about:
1. Oh hey, how you doing? Would you mind giving me all your money? Gee, thanks. I really appreciate it. No, I don’t have a gun. Just my hand in my pocket.
2. GIVE ME ALL YOU’RE GD MONEY!! NOW BITCH BEFORE I BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF (while brandishing a handgun)
To Gorsuch and the liberals, both scenarios are equally hard to define.
It’s not as vague as the Hatecrime Law.
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.