Tweet
This has I think, a direct and powerful new impact on our struggle against restrictive state laws in several (not all! but several) 2A issues.
The Supreme Court ruled today 6-3 on an issue of jury trials, in effect that the requirement for unanimous jury to convict (6th Amdmt) in a federal court- criminal case, also applies to State criminal juries via the 14th amendment.
Since Federal law and the BoR allow it, a State cannot take it away via state law or state constitution.
There are several directly applicable aspects in this ruling into making a case that, if federal law permits (or directs) certain lawful acts/requirements, then the States cannot limit those same acts and be more restrictive, esp when it comes to rights in the BoR. The Court specifically took something that is a Federal Rule (ie, law) and applied it directly to forbid the States from doing otherwise, via the 14thA. La and Ore are the only 2 states that say a criminal conviction can come on a 10-2 jury, all other 48 btw say unanimous. Federal Rules of Court require a unanimous jury to convict in criminal cases. The 10-2 allowance for La and Ore was overturned, the Court saying that a unanimous jury (6thA) is something the States cannot take away from the defendant.
So. What does this mean for us? Someone in a State where, for example, suppressors are illegal, or AR-15's are illegal, etc, can file suit that since federal law allows them, and it's in the 2A, then via the 14thA, States are not allowed to make it worse and take those away. I pick these 2 because they are specifically allowed under federal law, and in case of suppressors, are in fact federally reviewed, permitted and registered (thus legal).
I know in some ways this has been hashed out before but now we have a direct, current -- as in TODAY -- decision that makes the case for us.
At the present time here in Va we aren't in such a situation where a firearm that is legal at federal level is illegal at our state level (almost happened this Spring and stay tuned! they will try it again in 2021)..... but some states are in that position right now, so would somebody, along with 2AF or GOA or etc, file a suit on this basis?
There are things (and arguments) that this does NOT cover IMO, so they are not to be a part of this thread. This ruling probably will not affect things such as doing the NICS form, or 1-gun-a month, or 10-round mags (unless by doing so you can quote the state as saying they want to make virtually all handguns illegal etc... which I don't think we have caught them saying) ... but an "Arms" that is illegal at State level but legal at federal level.... that's the horse we should be riding.
Footnote: the Court also noted in its ruling today that by forbidding a state from using a 10-2 jury requirement, they are overturning a precedent going back to at least 1972 (Scotus ruling). So they consciously overturned a Scotus precedent. The States in effect were using a law to restrict a Bill of Rights issue for the defendant, which now they cannot do.
The ruling was 6-3, Roberts Alito and Kagan were in minority, all others voted to overturn the precedent and make the States require unanimous juries for criminal cases. So there were conservative and lib justices on both sides. Just an observation, not really up for discussion.
The Supreme Court ruled today 6-3 on an issue of jury trials, in effect that the requirement for unanimous jury to convict (6th Amdmt) in a federal court- criminal case, also applies to State criminal juries via the 14th amendment.
Since Federal law and the BoR allow it, a State cannot take it away via state law or state constitution.
There are several directly applicable aspects in this ruling into making a case that, if federal law permits (or directs) certain lawful acts/requirements, then the States cannot limit those same acts and be more restrictive, esp when it comes to rights in the BoR. The Court specifically took something that is a Federal Rule (ie, law) and applied it directly to forbid the States from doing otherwise, via the 14thA. La and Ore are the only 2 states that say a criminal conviction can come on a 10-2 jury, all other 48 btw say unanimous. Federal Rules of Court require a unanimous jury to convict in criminal cases. The 10-2 allowance for La and Ore was overturned, the Court saying that a unanimous jury (6thA) is something the States cannot take away from the defendant.
So. What does this mean for us? Someone in a State where, for example, suppressors are illegal, or AR-15's are illegal, etc, can file suit that since federal law allows them, and it's in the 2A, then via the 14thA, States are not allowed to make it worse and take those away. I pick these 2 because they are specifically allowed under federal law, and in case of suppressors, are in fact federally reviewed, permitted and registered (thus legal).
I know in some ways this has been hashed out before but now we have a direct, current -- as in TODAY -- decision that makes the case for us.
At the present time here in Va we aren't in such a situation where a firearm that is legal at federal level is illegal at our state level (almost happened this Spring and stay tuned! they will try it again in 2021)..... but some states are in that position right now, so would somebody, along with 2AF or GOA or etc, file a suit on this basis?
There are things (and arguments) that this does NOT cover IMO, so they are not to be a part of this thread. This ruling probably will not affect things such as doing the NICS form, or 1-gun-a month, or 10-round mags (unless by doing so you can quote the state as saying they want to make virtually all handguns illegal etc... which I don't think we have caught them saying) ... but an "Arms" that is illegal at State level but legal at federal level.... that's the horse we should be riding.
Footnote: the Court also noted in its ruling today that by forbidding a state from using a 10-2 jury requirement, they are overturning a precedent going back to at least 1972 (Scotus ruling). So they consciously overturned a Scotus precedent. The States in effect were using a law to restrict a Bill of Rights issue for the defendant, which now they cannot do.
The ruling was 6-3, Roberts Alito and Kagan were in minority, all others voted to overturn the precedent and make the States require unanimous juries for criminal cases. So there were conservative and lib justices on both sides. Just an observation, not really up for discussion.
Comment