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

To: BOBWADE
Did the gov't win, sounds like it was remanded and not necessarily reversed. Hard to tell without the actual order to read.

The actual order, stipped of all the justification:

"The United States appeals the district court's dismissal of the indictment of Defendant-Appellee Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson (Emerson) for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). The district court held that section 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) was unconstitutional on its face under the Second Amendment and as applied to Emerson under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We reverse and remand."

But what they reversed was strictly the fifth amendment part, while stating that the Due Process Clause of the 5th deed indeed apply since the right protected by the 2nd is an individual one, but that due process was obtained and that the right could be restricted under due process, as can other rights.

37 posted on 10/16/2001 9:52:54 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: El Gato
My eyes are crossed from reading all that legaleze! But I think I get it now. They reversed the dropping of charges and denied his review of the other grounds he was seeking. Sounds like guilty until proven innocent for gun owners going thru a divorce.
39 posted on 10/16/2001 10:11:21 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

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