Posted on 06/10/2021 8:29:52 AM PDT by ScubaDiver
The Supreme Court split 5-4 on the case Thursday, with Justices Neil Gorsuch Clarence Thomas splitting off from other conservative members of the bench.
WASHINGTON (CN) — A convicted felon whose priors included one instance of reckless aggravated assault should not have been given an enhanced sentence after he was later caught with a handgun, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday.
“The treatment of reckless offenses as ‘violent felonies’ would impose large sentencing enhancements on individuals (for example, reckless drivers) far afield from the ‘armed career criminals’ ACCA addresses — the kind of offenders who, when armed, could well ‘use [the] gun deliberately to harm a victim,'” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the plurality this morning.
Charles Borden brought the appeal after he was sentenced to nine years and seven months, arguing the state needed to prove a higher criminal intent, or mens rea, standard for an increased penalty under the ACCA.
(Excerpt) Read more at courthousenews.com ...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5410_8nj9.pdf
A better headline would be “doesn’t” rather than “shouldn’t”. Whether the sentence should be lengthened is a matter for the legislative branch when they write the law. Whether the sentence does get lengthened is a matter for the court when they apply the law as passed by the legislature.
Read Thomas’ actual and separate opinion (unlike Gorsuch, he did not “concur” with Kagan, as had his own reasoning). (his comments begin on page 27 of the link you provided).
3 time loser
Aggravated Assault history
FELON illegally in possession of a firearm.
Sorry folks, if The Left wants tougher gun laws, this here is the case for them.
In some Gulags across Amerikkka, simply TOUCHING a handgun without a license can get you cheese sandwiches and Off-label Kool Aid (Bug Juice as we called it) for a year.
Which of one’s Constitutional rights should be “infringed” upon conviction for/of a felony. Think about it please.
I am struggling to understand how, of all the rights enumerated, the ONLY ONE that is up for grabs is one’s Second Amendment right.
How can one be logically consistent regarding the RKBA on the one hand, and then taking that right away from someone who has a felony conviction?
I have not seen a convincing explanation.
Perhaps if convicted felons were allowed “constitutional carry”, ..... more people would realize that they are responsible for their own safety?
It is strange to realize there is a segment of society (one could even say, entire industries) that has an agenda that runs counter to the idea “you are responsible for your own safety”
Reading through Thomas’ concurrence, it would appear that this case was at least marginally decided correctly, based on the plain reading of the law itself, and previous precedent.
The result of this decision could be easily reversed by cleaning up the language in the law to made it more precise. I got the distinct impression from his comments that Thomas did not LIKE having to go along with it, but did, because that was what was required.
“Which of one’s Constitutional rights should be “infringed” upon conviction for/of a felony. Think about it please.”
Some believe that only those rights infringed upon by the conviction of the felony itself, are the only infringements the felony conviction should carry; that extending the penalties (additional infringements) after the convicted’ sentence is carried out is not “just”.
I admire Justice Thomas.
He goes on to say that he agrees that the circumstances warrant a conviction on Felon in possession of a gun, but that the wrongly decided Johnson vs USA bound his hands. Since Johnson was ruled wrongly, he is bound by that ruling, and therefore he is left with interpreting the criminals acts as unintentionals.
So if Johnson vs USA had been ruled correctly, then Thomas would have upheld the conviction. Pretty interesting.
If you can’t give a felon his gun back when he gets out, then he shouldn’t ever get out.
Right, but in the parlance of the Court, any opinion written by one who votes with the majority is known as a ‘concurring opinion.’ Justices write concurring opinions when they agree with the outcome settled upon by the majority but differ in the reasoning for that outcome. If he agreed with Kagan’s reasoning, there would be no need for a ‘concurring opinion;’ he’s ‘concurring’ with the outcome of the case not the reasoning.
I admire Thomas, I do not admire strict adherence to precedent; precedents can be wrong and should be no more binding on any sitting SOTUS than is legislation passed by a previous Congress binding on a sitting Congress that sees what is “right” is something that undoes that prior legislation.
Each SOTUS should see itself as a new SOTUS, not a “continuation” of any prior SOTUS, except wherein the sitting SOTUS chooses by its own reasoning to agree with any prior SOTUS ruling; but NOT out of any fidelity to any prior SOTUS.
Instead of seeing the federal institutions being permanent in construction I think they should only be seen as permanent in design, with each new Congress, each new President, each new SOTUS recognized as a new “government” by design of the Constitution. I believe the design of the Constitution was for a permanent revolution by the manner of renewal by the choice of the people, and the choices their elected representatives can make. I believe in only fidelity to the Constitution, not the prior acts of Constitutionally organized prior office holders.
Oh now you’ve done it...
Your argument makes too much sense...
Prepare to be flamed..
(I’m on your side, that pesky constitution thingie keeps getting in the way of people’s agendas)
Oh now you’ve done it...
Your argument makes too much sense...
Prepare to be flamed..
(I’m on your side, that pesky constitution thingie keeps getting in the way of people’s agendas)
If they can't be trusted to be armed, they should not be running around loose.
Correct. See my #14.
Is an "enhanced penalty" for a prior crime which one already served a punishment considered double jeopardy?
If the punishment for the current conviction has extra penalty added for the prior crime, isn't the person being punished a second time for that prior crime?
-PJ
You commit your crime you do your time you get out. In my America you should be free to own weapons for protection as guaranteed to all America.
If however you use those newly owned weapons to commit a crime then that’s different.
The principle of stare decisis arose out of the need for continuity in interpreting the law. If courts (subordinate to SCOTUS, in theory) can reinterpret the law based on what they believe a majority of current justices will accept, then the law has no meaning.
However, the concept of stare decisis. or precedent, should never be an inviolable ideal. Sometimes, cases are wrongly decided, and they must be overturned. Perhaps the most famous such instance is the Dred Scott decision, which was overturned by a later SCOTUS.
But please think about a situation where anyone can argue "the law means what *I* say it means at this moment in time" would really mean for law-abiding citizens nationwide.
Thomas is intellectually honest, some of the others are intellectually challenged.
I disagree that “continuity” is an ideal, when so often it merely preserves what should have been overturned.
“Continuity” is to preserve the image of the judiciary, but it is also based on an error in thought - that the judges should all always agree just to agree; that it is better to be wrong “in continuity” that to demonstrate to the public that they don’t all agree. THAT idea is the opposite their oath, to uphold the Constitution, not merely each other.
Again, it goes back to thinking of themselves as a mere continuum of their predecessors and their predecessors decisions, which is not what I think the Constitution expected.
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.