[betty boop]

...Dr. Emerson has not yet been convicted; the 5th Circuit merely remanded his case for a trial. At trial, he might well be acquitted, which would moot the whole issue.

You may well be right, LL, that SCOTUS will end up by taking a pass. They may be looking for a "cleaner" 2A case (if they're shopping for one in the first place, that is). But I have a question: On what basis could Dr. Emerson be acquitted on the remand, since the Fifth Circuit struck down Judge Cumming's ruling that 18 U.S.C., § 922(g)(h) is unconstitutional? In short, they have said -- by some stretch of the imagination I gather -- that 18 U.S.C., § 922(g)(h) is a reasonable "infringement" of the constitutional right to personal arms. I'm interested in your thoughts on this. best, bb.

[Lurking Libertarian]

On what basis could Dr. Emerson be acquitted on the remand, since the Fifth Circuit struck down Judge Cumming's ruling that 18 U.S.C., § 922(g)(h) is unconstitutional?

On a theoretical level, he can be acquitted simply because he hasn't been tried yet, which is all the reason the SCOTUS needs to duck the case. On a practical level, the only basis on which he can be acquitted would seem to be jury nullification, because the 5th Circuit has basically made the only issue for trial whether or not he possessed a gun after being served with a restraining order, which isn't (AFAIK) seriously in dispute.