Case: Voisine v. United States (2016) Facts: Voisine argues that previous domestic violence convictions should not affect his ability to own a gun, after being the main suspect in the shooting of a bald eagle, alerting officers that he owned a rifle. A background check later revealed prior domestic violence convictions, allowing officers to charge him in violation of § 922(g)(9). The District Court disagreed with Voisine, ending in a guilty plea on his part, on the right that he could appeal the District Court’s ruling. Voisine then filed joint certiorari with William Armstrong, after he was also charged in violation of § 922(g)(9), to the U.S Supreme Court Argument: Should misdemeanor assault convictions for reckless (as compared to intentionality
and knowing) cause statutory firearms bans? Holding: (6-2 vote) Prior reckless misdemeanors domestic violence convictions cause gun control prohibitions for offenders. In this case, an extension was added to § 922(g), prohibiting any person convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime from possessing any gun or ammunition with a connection to interstate commerce. There are no more legal steps for them to take to get their rulings overturned. Majority: Delivered by Justice Kagan, the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal law prohibits any individual convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime from possessing a firearm. Certiorari was granted because of a circuit split on whether or not a misdemeanor conviction of reckless assault in a domestic relationship disqualifies a person from possessing a gun under § 922(g)(9). There was a previous provision which prevented convicted felons from possessing firearms, that being § 922(g)(1). However most domestic violence crimes are processed as misdemeanors instead of felonies, despite the seriousness of the crime. Because of this, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded on § 922(g)(9), now including any person convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime in the selection of people disqualified from owning a firearm or ammunition in connection to interstate commerce.
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
There have been many, many court cases throughout the history of the United States. One important case that I believe to be important is the court case of Clinton v. New York. This case involves more than just President Bill Clinton, the City of New York; it involved Snake River Farmers’ as well. This case mostly resolves around the president’s power of the line item veto. In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Line Item Veto Act into law. This would allow the president to get rid of a part of a bill and not disapprove the entire bill. The first time that President Clinton used this power he used it to refine the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, he got rid of a part of the bill that waived the Federal Governments statutory right to get back or receive $2.6 billion in taxes that were levied by the City of New York. President Clinton also line item vetoed a section of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 this wouldn’t allow certain food processors and refiners to sell their stock to farmers to defer the recognition of capital gains. This is when the Snake River Farmers’ and City of New York went after Clinton for doing so this is where the case of Clinton v. The City of New York originated from. In this case there were constitutional issues that were raised, major arguments presented, and the final ruling from the Supreme Court.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
The two filed separate claims challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s provision that used congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law. The NRA stood behind them, stating that this provision violated the 10th Amendment. However, instead of just arguing for the removal of the provision, the NRA argued that the whole law must be voided. This argument contradicted prior claims from the NRA that they did, in fact, support background checks. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled to remove the portion of the Brady Law that required local police to conduct background checks as it was an unconstitutional mandate. The rest of the law remained in place
Former Chief Justice of the United States (1969 – 1986), Warren E. Burger, was published in the January 14, 1990 edition of Parade Magazine for his work entitled, “The Right to Bear Arms”. In his essay, he questions the modern age standards being held for one to purchase a firearm, with an aim to tighten up those regulations. To argue his case he has provided record breaking homicide statistics from 1988 and states that some of the metropolitan centers in the U.S. “have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe”, where strict gun control laws have been placed.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), Terry and two other men were noticed by police officers to be hanging around a store, and seemed to possibly be “casing a job.” They were afraid the men might be getting ready to rob the store, due to their appearance and their actions. An officer stopped the men and frisked them. They found guns on them, and arrested them (Oyez, n.d.).
Ernesto Miranda grew up not finishing high school. He didn’t finish the 9th grade, and he decided to drop out of school during that year. He also had a criminal record and had pronounced sexual fantasies after dropping out of high school. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963. He had raped an 18 yr. girl who was mildly mentally handicapped in March of 1963. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. When he was found and arrested, and he was not told of his rights before interrogation. After two hours of interrogation, the cops and detectives had a written confession from Miranda that he did do the crimes that he was acquitted for. Miranda also had a history mental instability, and had no counsel at the time of the trial. The prosecution at the trial mainly used his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of both counts of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court in
...own. That handguns cannot be restricted from obtain and carry for self-defend in one’s home. As for the other question that the case did not answer, all we can do now is wait for these questions to be answered by the Supreme Court.
Blackburn was candid that most of his clients were “in the (drug) life at some level” and many of them had prior arrests. For instance, Billy Wafer, was on probation for possession of marijuana at the time when he was accused of selling cocaine to Coleman. “I ain’t an angel but I’ve never sold drugs,” said Wafer. Wafer, unlike most of the other defendants, had his charges dropped because he had a rock solid alibi with time cards from his job. Also, his supervisor testified verifying he was at work when Coleman claimed he sold him cocaine.
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
Clear and Danger was evaluated in the First Amendment and guarantees the right of Freedom of Speech. I have two scenarios regarding clear and danger, the first scenario is Debs v United States. In this case Debs v United States, Debs felt that socialism is the answer; however, Deb’s was prosecuted for the remarks that he made. In addition, the speech that Deb gave wasn’t as harsh as made by others, for example, George McGovern made a remark about the Viet Nam War during his 1972 presidential bid which was very harsh. This process was done by using its weak form of the clear-and-present-danger test and Deb’s ended up being sentenced to a ten year sentence. In this case Deb’s couldn’t speak everything on his mind that he wanted which was a violation
In chapter twelve, Joel Samaha has discussed various court proceedings before trial. Samaha begins to elaborate the importance of the prosecutor’s decision in determining whether there is a concrete case against the alleged defendant. The evidence at hand ultimately dictates the proceeding of events in court. Along with evidence, the lack of resources might add to the difficulty in charging an individual. Prosecutors are faced with an overload of cases; ultimately prosecutors are forced to prioritize their cases based on their resources and the evidence provided. The cases that are regarded are then considered for suspect detainment. Probable cause to detain suspects is undergone so that the case may proceed to trial. Typically an arraignment
Upon Small’s arrest, he pleaded guilty while reserving his right to challenge the conviction on the grounds that his foreign conviction does not apply for the ”unlawful gun possession” statute. The Federal District Court, and Court of ...
illegal for a felon to possess any firearm. ( Moore 1994 p 440) Most of the
Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments the Second and the Fourteenth intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth-century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment’s intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision.