Mississippi judge, dismissing gun charge, assails Supreme Court gun ruling

[livingston]

Mississippi judge, dismissing gun charge, assails Supreme Court gun ruling​

• Ruling rejecting felon gun possession ban applies only to single defendant
• Judge takes issue with landmark Bruen ruling and with conservative doctrine of originalism

June 29 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Mississippi has dismissed criminal charges brought against a man for owning a firearm despite an earlier felony conviction, while delivering a scathing criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that he said compelled his decision.
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves in Jackson ruled on Wednesday that permanently prohibiting Jessie Bullock from owning a gun because of a felony conviction would violate the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it was not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of gun regulation.
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves in Jackson ruled on Wednesday that permanently prohibiting Jessie Bullock from owning a gun because of a felony conviction would violate the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it was not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of gun regulation.

But Reeves harshly criticized that standard, established last year by the Supreme Court in its landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling, saying it offered "no accepted rules for what counts as evidence" in analyzing the historical tradition.

The judge said his ruling applied only to Bullock's case, and did not strike down the federal law barring felons from owning guns
Though he ruled against the government, Reeves criticized so-called originalism, the conservative judicial philosophy underlying Bruen which holds that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood when it was written, as unworkable. For much of American history, he said, interpretation of the Constitution has changed to incorporate modern values, as in the 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

"The next generation will have its own conceptions of liberty," he wrote. "It will interpret the principles of the Constitution, enduring as they are, differently than this generation has interpreted them. Change is unstoppable."

Mississippi judge, dismissing gun charge, assails Supreme Court gun ruling

A federal judge in Mississippi has dismissed criminal charges brought against a man for owning a firearm despite an earlier felony conviction, while delivering a scathing criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that he said compelled his decision.

www.reuters.com

 

[livingston]

WOW: Federal Judge makes PRO GUN ruling... THEN HAS A MELTDOWN against the SCOTUS over Bruen for it​

 

[diggs223]

Another asshole who thinks the constitution should mean what he wants it to mean

 

[spat]

He does have a point that Bruen isn't as clear as it should be.

I'm not sure why judges don't seem to be able to clearly communicate their intent sometimes, but Bruen does leave more gray area that I would prefer.


"History, text, and tradition". Well, 2 of the 3 are vague.

What era of history are we looking at ? 1777, 1877, or 1977. All are history, but what was accepted gun laws were *very* different.

Tradition fails the same way.

I would have preferred far more concrete standards.

Legislators and judges fall back on vague "reasonable this" and "customary" that far too often.

 

[Grimscale]

I feel the same about the "in common use" test.
Define "in common use".
Does it mean that only guns that many people own are protected? Then how could ANY new firearm ever get that protection? It's a catch-22. It effectively restricts us to what firearms are available NOW.

 

[prambo]

Shits-Pants Sponge-Brain appointee...

 

[SomeSoldier]

I like it. Either you are a citizen and have rights or you belong in prison.

 

[Zerex]

Appointed by Barack Obama ( the unapprehended 1981 Brinks Bandit).

Barack Obama's Close Encounter with the Weather Underground

This Judge is black and looks like Bragg..another unwitting, unqualified basically uneducated dunce push through, who just does not understand the meaning of the Constitution and BOR................thinks this will change someday.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

I don't really care about the feelings ("meltdown") of the judge. Only interested in the results. He ruled the way he was supposed to rule and did it on a subject that many of us have felt should be the case for a looooooong time. If you're not in prison then you should have your rights. AAAAALL of your rights. Who the hell cares about the judges personal bias as long as he ruled correctly aka as the law stands? If Hochul actually followed the law and didn't go against Bruen every step of the way would you care? Who cares if she begrudgingly complied? To me this is in the same vein as Trump got xyz accomplished but I hate the way he speaks.

ETA: this is actually a good start

 

[Modean]

Just follow the SCOTUS direction. You don't have to like it.

 

[Acer-m14]

"in common use" test.

nukes are in common use


i do not see the them listed in the 2A as banned

 

[spat]

nukes are in common use


i do not see the them listed in the 2A as banned

Well, used twice 70 years ago might be stretching "common use".

 

[SonOfSun]

Just follow the SCOTUS direction. You don't have to like it.

To be fair, whether you agree with the judge's personal opinion or not, that's what he did - he was consistent with SCOTUS. Everyone has their own opinion on things, but in this case he didn't have latitude to interpret on his own because of lack of precedent, so he didn't. He followed precedent as set by the SCOTUS. That's exactly the way it should be.

 

[spat]

To be fair, whether you agree with the judge's personal opinion or not, that's what he did - he was consistent with SCOTUS. Everyone has their own opinion on things, but in this case he didn't have latitude to interpret on his own because of lack of precedent, so he didn't. He followed precedent as set by the SCOTUS. That's exactly the way it should be.

The unusual part is that he had the integrity to admit he didn't have the latitude.

That seems very rare among left wing judges anymore.