Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In deciding whether possessing a firearm in either the glove compartment or the trunk should be included in the statutory definition of “carries” the Court employed a lengthy discussion of the linguistics and ordinary meanings of the phrase “carries a firearm.” [5] The majority debated over the possible ways to define the phrase but ...
Because in both Bailey's and Robinson's cases the gun was sufficiently accessible and proximate to the drugs that the jury could have concluded that the gun was there to protect the drugs. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case to resolve a split of authority among the federal courts of appeals about the meaning of the word "use" in § 924(c).
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and whether it empowers the government to prohibit firearm possession by a person with a civil domestic violence restraining order in the absence of a corresponding criminal domestic violence conviction or charge.
Bruen (2022) created a new test that laws seeking to limit Second Amendment rights must be based on the history and tradition of gun rights, although the test was refined to focus on similar analogues and general principles rather than strict matches from the past in United States v. Rahimi (2024).
Firearm case law in the United States is based on decisions of the Supreme Court and other federal courts.Each of these decisions deals with the Second Amendment (which is a part of the Bill of Rights), the right to keep and bear arms, the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and/or other federal firearms laws.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their ...
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 ...
While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973) in which the court found that Hess's words were protected under "his rights to free speech ", [ 3 ] in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite ...