Ammo For Sale

« « More on the NRA shakeup | Home | Gun Porn » »

Gun case at the SCOTUS

Supreme Court ruling on intent under the Gun Control Act

More here.

11 Responses to “Gun case at the SCOTUS”

  1. Tim Says:

    Ain’t no lawyer *but*…….

    It’s been said we each break the law numerous times each day – most often unwittingly.

    I can appreciate a precedent which argues that an individual know they are violating a law in order to be punished for it.

  2. nk Says:

    This case doesn’t even go that far. The guy was not ignorant of the law. He was ignorant of a material fact.

    He did not know that his visa had been revoked and that he was now an illegal alien and therefore an absolutely prohibited person. Notice, that he was busted for shooting at a range, which like licensed hunting is a legal activity for anyone legally in the United States. Not only citizens and permanent residents, but also students, tourists, temporary workers, etc., although this second group is otherwise generally prohibited to privately possess guns and ammunition.

  3. RB Says:

    Why would they even bother arresting anyone over this stupid offense

  4. Rick Says:

    RB, because guncrime.

  5. nk Says:

    Low-hanging fruit, to justify their phony-baloney jobs. Easy conviction for their win-loss record. Or so they thought at the time.

  6. Paul Says:

    And if intent is part of breaking the law then that can be used to argue quite a bit against unintentional breaking of the law.

    Mens rea –

    It is a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”.

    We can use that! Lots of people are arrested for crimes they didn’t even know existed!

  7. Jailer Says:

    What put this guy on someones radar in the first place?

  8. Rick Says:

    Paul, and Hillary got off with mishandling classified material because Comey said she didn’t have criminal intent. If it’s a good enough excuse for her…

  9. Tim Says:

    “Comey said she didn’t have criminal intent.”

    Mishandling of classified materials is legally unique, in that ‘bad intent’ is not required. Mishandling an any form is a felony (unless you’re a fat, drunk grifter named Hillary).

  10. Paul Says:

    Tim, but now SCOTUS opens the door to making it ALL LAWS require intent. About time.

  11. Tim Says:

    Paul, that would certainly make our world a more interesting place. How will prosecutors prove that I *knew* I was in a “gun free zone” while carrying?, etc.?