Texas man sentenced to prison for having gun while under protective order - Emerson

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | 1/24/03 | AP

[FSPress]

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- A man was sentenced Friday to 2½ years in prison for owning guns while under a protective order -- a limitation on gun rights that an appeals court held was constitutionally acceptable.

The U.S. Supreme Court last June declined to hear arguments that Timothy Emerson should have been allowed to keep his guns under the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."

Emerson was indicted after the restraining order was issued during his divorce in 1998. He owned several rifles and a handgun at the time.

A federal judge dismissed the charges, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision in 2001, ruling that an individual's right to bear arms could be restricted in some circumstances.

In Emerson's case and a similar one the Supreme Court also rejected, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual as well as the collective right to gun ownership. That position reversed decades-old policy on the Second Amendment.

The administration, though, did not support Emerson's appeal, saying the Second Amendment right was still subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case sent it back to the district court, where Emerson was convicted in October.

Emerson's attorney, David Guinn, argued at trial his client shouldn't be punished for owning guns that were legal once his divorce was completed. He plans to appeal the sentence.

Emerson had faced a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

[DugwayDuke]

I concurr with Supercat's comments.

[DugwayDuke]

"A simple question that requieres a simple answer. What is your profession?"

I note you've asked that or a similar question of both myself and Supercat. I see no reason to answer that question since there is no possible way you can verify or refute any claims of special expertise I might make.

The simple answer to your question is this: you must judge any argument made on the internet by the content of that argument alone.

[blackbart.223]

"I note you've asked that or a similar question of both myself and Supercat. I see no reason to answer that question since there is no possible way you can verify or refute any claims of special expertise I might make."

I don't mind stating my occupation. I'm a full time electronics technician and a part time photographer. Believe it or not if you like.

I presume you are an attorney. Correct me if I'm mistaken.