Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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 ...
Alaska was the first state to adopt carry laws modeled after those of Vermont, where no license is required to carry a handgun either openly or concealed. However, permits are still issued to residents, allowing reciprocity with other states [1] and exemption from the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act. [2]
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.
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.
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 ...
The questioning stems from Barrett’s dissenting opinion in a 2019 appeals court case in which she disagreed with a ruling that prohibited a felon from owning a firearm in Wisconsin. The 2019 gun ...
Henderson v. United States, 575 U.S. 622 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a court-ordered transfer of a felon's lawfully owned firearms from government custody to a third party is not barred by §922(g) if the court is satisfied that the recipient will not give the felon control over the firearms, so that he could either use them or direct their use.