With all the respect to which you, Justice Thomas, et al are due, prior judicial interpretations of the phrase “crime of violence” is not sufficient to give the accused proper notice of the repercussions of his actions. The definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S. Code §16(b) is an “offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing
the offense.” What the heck does that mean? And even if a prior court had ruled that the average first-degree residential burglary met the test, it doesn’t follow that all first-degree residential burglaries fall under the definition. Congress should amend the law and use more specific language so that we aren’t at the mercy of what the Executive Branch in the first instance, and the Judicial Branch ultimately, decide that they want the law to mean on that particular day.
If such a vague standard was upheld in a law mandating the deportation of an otherwise legal alien who has committed a felony (and served his time), what’s to say that next time a similarly vague standard won’t be upheld in a law that takes away the right to keep and bear arms of an otherwise legal gun-owner who has committed a felony (and served his time)? Criminal laws require specific descriptions, not vague and broad brushstrokes to be filled in later by those enforcing the law and those interpreting the law.