[Lurking Libertarian]

Please correct me if wrong, but I have never seen where Emerson was convicted of anything. As I read the 5th Circuit decision, the court has allowed the indictment of Emerson to stand based on the defense presented and has sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings, if any. Since Judge Cummings of the lower court has already dismissed the indictment, what latitude/option is left to the govt?

The indictment is now reinstated and the case goes back to trial. Based on the Couer of Appeals' language, Emerson is probably toast, because it looks like the only issues for the jury are (1)was he subject to a court order of protection, and (2)did he buy a gun after that date? The answers to both of those are clearly yes, so he's going to be found guilty unless the jury decides to nullify.

[gatex]

"...did he buy a gun after that date? The answers to both of those are clearly yes..."

Where did you get this ?

[Henrietta]

the only issues for the jury are (1)was he subject to a court order of protection, and (2)did he buy a gun after that date? The answers to both of those are clearly yes,

Actually, he bought the gun on October 10, 1997 in San Angelo, Texas, from a licensed dealer. The restraining order came down on September 14, 1998.

[El Gato]

it looks like the only issues for the jury are (1)was he subject to a court order of protection, and (2)did he buy a gun after that date? The answers to both of those are clearly yes

I believe the answer to the second question is no, in that I think he bought the gun before the court order was issued. However he was charged with possesion, not buying or attempting to buy. Of course then the answer to "did he posses the gun(s) after the date of the court order" is yes.