Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The government took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. In reality, the district court judge was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released.
Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that making arrangements for a straw purchase of a gun is in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and is different from re-selling or gifting a previously purchased gun.
Gun show, in the U.S.. Most federal gun laws are found in the following acts: [3] [4] National Firearms Act (NFA) (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, suppressors, and disguised or improvised firearms.
The government “failed to produce any evidence” that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, he wrote. “Not a single historical regulation ...
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), Pub. L 90-618 and subsequent amendments established a detailed Federal program governing the distribution of firearms. The GCA prohibited firearms ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety: convicted felons, convicted misdemeanor domestic violence or stalking offenders, persons with an outstanding felony ...
The case centers around a federal law that prohibits someone from possessing a gun if they're under a domestic violence restraining order.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a man whose conviction on gun charges was called into question by a recent high court decision is out of luck. The court's conservatives were in the 6-3 ...
Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, which generally operates to suppress – i.e. prevent the introduction at trial of – evidence obtained in violation of Constitutional rights. "Suppression of evidence, however, has always been [the court's] last resort, not [its] first impulse.