OlongJohnson
06-29-2019, 10:17 AM
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/scotus-violent-gun-crimes-are-unconstitutionally-vague/
Davis and Glover appealed to the court on the grounds that the law was too vague when it described what is considered a “crime of violence.” § 924 (c)(3) reads says the crime must be a felony and:
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”18 U. S. C. § 924 (c)(3)
The defendants claim that the B portion is unconstitutionally vague was upheld by the Court.
Gorsuch delivered the opinion, Kavanaugh authored the dissent.
Seems to me (NAL) that to use this case to arrive at the decision as described by Guns America required the court to separate the appelants' actual crime of armed robbery from a hypothetical generalized conception of the phrase in question. Any of the lawyers on the forum SMEs in this area?
If they're going to go this way, maybe we can at least get them to strike down "sporting purposes"...
Davis and Glover appealed to the court on the grounds that the law was too vague when it described what is considered a “crime of violence.” § 924 (c)(3) reads says the crime must be a felony and:
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”18 U. S. C. § 924 (c)(3)
The defendants claim that the B portion is unconstitutionally vague was upheld by the Court.
Gorsuch delivered the opinion, Kavanaugh authored the dissent.
Seems to me (NAL) that to use this case to arrive at the decision as described by Guns America required the court to separate the appelants' actual crime of armed robbery from a hypothetical generalized conception of the phrase in question. Any of the lawyers on the forum SMEs in this area?
If they're going to go this way, maybe we can at least get them to strike down "sporting purposes"...