Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Old Reckless Crime Shouldn’t Lengthen Gun Sentence, High Court Rules (Gorsuch, Thomas join Kagan)
Courthouse News Service ^ | 06/10/2021 | Jack Rodgers

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: acca; court; gorsuch; kagan; law; scotus; scrotus; supremecourt; supremes; thesupremefart; thomas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
Kind of an esoteric case involving an obscure law. It didn't get much, if any, publicity during the year. It's odd that Thomas and Gorsuch joined the libs. Not sure if this is part of the on-going effort to show 'bipartisanship' on the Court, or if both are making principled arguments. I think it may be the latter as Thomas issues a separate concurring opinion. Kavanaugh penned the lengthy dissent, joined by Barrett, Alito & Roberts. Decision is below...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5410_8nj9.pdf

1 posted on 06/10/2021 8:29:52 AM PDT by ScubaDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ScubaDiver

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.


2 posted on 06/10/2021 8:40:14 AM PDT by edwinland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScubaDiver

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 posted on 06/10/2021 8:45:59 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScubaDiver

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.


4 posted on 06/10/2021 8:50:56 AM PDT by Macoozie (Handcuffs and Orange Jumpsuitss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

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”


5 posted on 06/10/2021 9:16:07 AM PDT by Honest Nigerian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ScubaDiver

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.


6 posted on 06/10/2021 9:27:30 AM PDT by zeugma (Stop deluding yourself that America is still a free country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Honest Nigerian

“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”.


7 posted on 06/10/2021 9:33:54 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

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.


8 posted on 06/10/2021 9:55:09 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (America -- July 4, 1776 to November 3, 2020 -- R.I.P.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ScubaDiver

If you can’t give a felon his gun back when he gets out, then he shouldn’t ever get out.


9 posted on 06/10/2021 10:21:11 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (White Privilege does NOT begin with Being White but when you ACT "WHITE"! So, -- ACT "WHITE"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

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.


10 posted on 06/10/2021 10:24:15 AM PDT by ScubaDiver (Reddit refugee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

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.


11 posted on 06/10/2021 10:27:42 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Honest Nigerian

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)


12 posted on 06/10/2021 11:27:31 AM PDT by joe fonebone (bush league chamber of commerce worshiping republiCAN'Ts are the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Honest Nigerian

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)


13 posted on 06/10/2021 11:27:33 AM PDT by joe fonebone (bush league chamber of commerce worshiping republiCAN'Ts are the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Honest Nigerian
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?

If they can't be trusted to be armed, they should not be running around loose.

14 posted on 06/10/2021 11:33:56 AM PDT by JimRed (TERM LIMITS, NOW! Militia to the border! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
If you can’t give a felon his gun back when he gets out, then he shouldn’t ever get out.

Correct. See my #14.

15 posted on 06/10/2021 11:36:57 AM PDT by JimRed (TERM LIMITS, NOW! Militia to the border! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ScubaDiver
Question:

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

16 posted on 06/10/2021 11:37:01 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (* LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScubaDiver

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.


17 posted on 06/10/2021 11:41:05 AM PDT by Vaquero ( Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
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.

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.

18 posted on 06/10/2021 11:47:18 AM PDT by MortMan (Shouldn't "palindrome" read the same forward and backward?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

Thomas is intellectually honest, some of the others are intellectually challenged.


19 posted on 06/10/2021 11:52:35 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

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.


20 posted on 06/10/2021 12:15:26 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson