SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights case

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights case

#1

Post by ELB » Mon May 18, 2015 7:30 pm

HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES (Opinion)

Government loses 9-0, with Kagan writing the decision in a property and gun rights case where the property was guns.

The opinion is short and lays out the key details, so here it is verbatim. This applies directly to a very narrow set of circumstances, but I think, or hope, it is significant in that it beats back some serious federal overreach simply because "guns!".

(Note: I added a couple paragraph breaks that were not in the original formatting so it is a little less tedious to read).

After being charged with the felony offense of distributing marijuana, petitioner Tony Henderson was required as a condition of his bail to turn over firearms that he lawfully owned. Henderson ultimately pleaded guilty, and, as a felon, was prohibited under 18 U. S. C. §922(g) from possessing his (or any other) firearms. Henderson therefore asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which had custody of his firearms, to transfer them to his friend. But the agency refused to do so. Henderson then filed a motion in federal district court seeking to transfer his firearms, but the court denied the motion on the ground that Henderson’s requested transfer would give him constructive possession of the firearms in violation of §922(g). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Held: A court-ordered transfer of a felon’s lawfully owned firearms from Government custody to a third party is not barred by §922(g) if the court is satisfied that the recipient will not give the felon control over the firearms, so that he could either use them or direct their use. Federal courts have equitable authority to order law enforcement to return property obtained during the course of a criminal proceeding to its rightful owner. Section 922(g), however, bars a court from ordering guns returned to a felon-owner like Henderson, because that would place the owner in violation of the law. And because §922(g)bans constructive as well as actual possession, it also prevents a court from ordering the transfer of a felon’s guns to someone willing to give the felon access to them or to accede to the felon’s instructions about their future use.

The Government goes further, arguing that §922(g) prevents all transfers to a third party, no matter how independent of the felon’s influence, unless that recipient is a licensed firearms dealer or other third party who will sell the guns on the open market. But that view conflates possession, which §922(g) prohibits, with an owner’s right merely to alienate his property, which it does not. After all, the Government’s reading of §922(g) would prohibit a felon from disposing of his firearms even when he would lack any control over and thus not possess them before, during, or after the disposition. That reading would also extend §922(g)’s scope far beyond its purpose; preventing a felon like Henderson from disposing of his firearms, even in ways that guarantee he never uses them again, does nothing to advance the statute’s goal of keeping firearms away from felons.

Finally, the Government’s insistence that a felon cannot select a third-party recipient over whom he exercises no influence fits poorly with its concession that a felon may select a firearms dealer or third party to sell his guns. The Government’s reading of §922(g) is thus overbroad.

Accordingly, a court may approve the transfer of a felon’s guns consistently with §922(g) if, but only if, the recipient will not grant the felon control over those weapons. One way to ensure that result is to order that the guns be turned over to a firearms dealer, himself independent of the felon’s control, for subsequent sale on the open market. But that is not the only option; a court, with proper assurances from the recipient, may also grant a felon’s request to transfer his guns to a person who expects to maintain custody of them. Either way, once a court is satisfied that the transferee will not allow the felon to exert any influence over the firearms, the court has equitable power to accommodate the felon’s transfer request.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
“The only thing more enjoyable than seeing your opponent lose an election they rigged is seeing them lose an investigation they rigged.” Author unknown but dead on the mark.

User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 16954
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#2

Post by WildBill » Mon May 18, 2015 8:04 pm

ELB wrote:HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES (Opinion)

Government loses 9-0, with Kagan writing the decision in a property and gun rights case where the property was guns.
It doesn't seem so much that the government loses, but the people win. :patriot:
NRA Endowment Member

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 12707
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#3

Post by C-dub » Tue May 19, 2015 6:45 am

SCOTUS had an odd day yesterday. They also struck down Maryland's double tax law, but then refused to hear a case resulting in a lower court ruling that said the American Flag was disruptive and that schools could ban them from being worn. The Maryland situation will cause Maryland to lose over $100M/year and could cause similar problems for other states with similar laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015 ... -ban-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 10351
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#4

Post by jmra » Tue May 19, 2015 7:09 am

C-dub wrote:SCOTUS had an odd day yesterday. They also struck down Maryland's double tax law, but then refused to hear a case resulting in a lower court ruling that said the American Flag was disruptive and that schools could ban them from being worn. The Maryland situation will cause Maryland to lose over $100M/year and could cause similar problems for other states with similar laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015 ... -ban-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't like the wording of a that sentence, I prefer "It will keep Maryland from stealing over $100M/yr from its citizens".
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 12707
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#5

Post by C-dub » Tue May 19, 2015 7:20 am

jmra wrote:
C-dub wrote:SCOTUS had an odd day yesterday. They also struck down Maryland's double tax law, but then refused to hear a case resulting in a lower court ruling that said the American Flag was disruptive and that schools could ban them from being worn. The Maryland situation will cause Maryland to lose over $100M/year and could cause similar problems for other states with similar laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05 ... latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015 ... -ban-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't like the wording of a that sentence, I prefer "It will keep Maryland from stealing over $100M/yr from its citizens".
I also like it better that way.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider

User avatar

misterlarry
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:35 pm
Location: The Woodlands

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#6

Post by misterlarry » Tue May 19, 2015 12:38 pm

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:
01/19/2013 CHL Class - 03/25/2013 CHL Arrived
NRA Life Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7938
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#7

Post by RoyGBiv » Tue May 19, 2015 12:51 pm

I don't see it as stealing.
The law was passed by legislators that were elected by the People of MD.
The People of MD are free to live elsewhere.

I'm glad the law was struck down, but, stealing it was not.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 12707
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#8

Post by C-dub » Tue May 19, 2015 1:02 pm

RoyGBiv wrote:I don't see it as stealing.
The law was passed by legislators that were elected by the People of MD.
The People of MD are free to live elsewhere.

I'm glad the law was struck down, but, stealing it was not.
The people may not have gotten to vote on it themselves and may not have known that those they elected were going to do something like this in advance.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider


Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3146
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#9

Post by Dave2 » Tue May 19, 2015 1:47 pm

RoyGBiv wrote:The People of MD are free to live elsewhere.
Strictly speaking you are correct, but how many people can just up and move to a different state? Especially when, even if they work close enough to "the border" that they can commute from the other side, neighboring states may not be much better?
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7938
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#10

Post by RoyGBiv » Tue May 19, 2015 1:50 pm

C-dub wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:I don't see it as stealing.
The law was passed by legislators that were elected by the People of MD.
The People of MD are free to live elsewhere.

I'm glad the law was struck down, but, stealing it was not.
The people may not have gotten to vote on it themselves and may not have known that those they elected were going to do something like this in advance.
Representative government.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 12707
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Feds in gun & property rights c

#11

Post by C-dub » Tue May 19, 2015 3:05 pm

RoyGBiv wrote:
C-dub wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:I don't see it as stealing.
The law was passed by legislators that were elected by the People of MD.
The People of MD are free to live elsewhere.

I'm glad the law was struck down, but, stealing it was not.
The people may not have gotten to vote on it themselves and may not have known that those they elected were going to do something like this in advance.
Representative government.
Okay. So? :headscratch
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider

Post Reply

Return to “Federal”