2014 Supreme Court Term

Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,422
Likes
6,298
Location
My forest stronghold
Feedback: 26 / 0 / 0
It's that time of year again so let's open a new SCOTUS thread to discuss 2A and firearms related cases that may come before the court this term.

Initially there wasn't anything on my radar until I saw this one tonight: Henderson v. United States. I haven't read the petition yet, but it looks interesting in terms of asset forfeiture. It's also been re-listed twice now.

Issue: Whether a felony conviction, which makes it unlawful for the defendant to possess a firearm, prevents a court under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or under general equity principles from ordering that the government (1) transfer non-contraband firearms to an unrelated third party to whom the defendant has sold all his property interests; or (2) sell the firearms for the benefit of the defendant.

So the question is: Do you still have a non-possessory property interest in your firearms once you become a prohibited person? What if you had a six figure gun collection? Can you sell it, transfer it to your heirs, or benefit from it? Or, does the government get it? It's not really 'contraband'.
 
Supreme Court to decide whether convicted felon can sell guns after giving them up

The Supreme Court will decide whether a convicted felon barred from possessing guns can sell or transfer the weapons to another person after he had surrendered them to authorities.

The justice on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from Tony Henderson, a former U.S. Border Patrol agent arrested and charged with distributing marijuana. He agreed to turn over 19 firearms to the FBI as a condition of his release.

After pleading guilty, Henderson wanted to sell the weapons to a friend or transfer them to his wife. But a federal district court found that technically would give Henderson possession of the weapons in violation of federal law. A federal appeals court agreed.

Henderson says the guns were unrelated to his crime and the FBI never said the guns were seized.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...l-guns-after-giving-them/?intcmp=world_topics

---
Why can't the guns be transferred from the police to a FFL?

All the way to the Supreme Court?

Did it cost more to pay for the case than the guns are worth?
 
Total BS - everyone invovled agrees that the guns are not the spoils of his drug trading therefore he should be able to recover the value inherent in them if he cannot possess them.
When property is siezed by emminent domain, the owner is owed fair value of the property taken. How is the taking of firearms any different from real estate?
 
Can we get a mod to merge this thread into the one in Comm2A's sub forum. There is likely to be one or two more cases that will be of interest to gun owners this term and it would be good to have the discussion in one place. OP willing of course.
 
Can we get a mod to merge this thread into the one in Comm2A's sub forum. There is likely to be one or two more cases that will be of interest to gun owners this term and it would be good to have the discussion in one place. OP willing of course.

Of course!
 
Can we get a mod to merge this thread into the one in Comm2A's sub forum. There is likely to be one or two more cases that will be of interest to gun owners this term and it would be good to have the discussion in one place. OP willing of course.

Merged and moved. (somehow it ended up in GD after I moved it, so I moved it into Comm2a).

-Mike
 
This one is a statutory case. It's not a constitutional question. It will be interesting to see what dicta they give however.
 
Jackson v. San Francisco

This one has been kicking around the lower courts since 2009. Originally it challenged three San Francisco ordinances - a storage requirement, a ban on discharging a firearm with no self defense exemption, and a ban on any ammunition that doesn't have a "sporting purpose". The SCOTUS petition drops the last two challenges and focuses exclusively on storage.

The SF storage ordinance is very similar to 131L in that it requires firearms to be in kept a locked case or disabled by a trigger lock. SCOTUS veteran Attorney Paul Clement represents petitioners. As usual, it's unlikely that the court will grant cert. Ideally we'd like to see a GVR (grant, vacate, and remand), but that's probably too much to hope for.

Petition.

Full case history for the legal wonks.
 
Back
Top Bottom