Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting Section 921(a)(33)(A) of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended in 1996. The Court held that a domestic relationship is not necessarily a defining element of the predicate offense to support a conviction for possession of a firearm by a ...
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and ...
Rybar (3d Cir. 1996) [16] - In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Congress did have the power to regulate possession of homemade machine guns under the Commerce Clause, later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. The Third Circuit made this decision 2–1, with future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in dissent.
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.. As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday upholding a law that bars domestic abusers from possessing firearms — a rare victory for gun control advocates — doesn't mean it is going to ...
In a 6-3 ruling, the court declared unconstitutional a New York law that had been on the books for over a century that prohibited having a gun in public without a permit.
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that a decades-old law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from owning firearms was unconstitutional as applied to the case of a marijuana user, the ...
Critics state that the overly broad prohibition of all felons from owning guns serves no "public safety" benefit since, "Many felonies are not violent in the least, raising no particular suspicion that the convict is a threat to public safety" according to UCLA law professor and firearms expert Adam Winkler, "Perjury, securities law violations ...