United States v. Emerson

Last updated
United States v. Emerson
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 16, 2001
Citation(s)270 F.3d 203
Case history
Subsequent historyOpinion revised, November 2, 2001; Cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907(2002)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting William Lockhart Garwood, Harold R. DeMoss Jr., Robert Manley Parker
Case opinions
MajorityGarwood, joined by DeMoss, Parker (Parts I-IV)
ConcurrenceParker
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. II

United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), [1] cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907(2002), [2] is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.   § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), a federal statute that prohibited the transportation of firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce by persons subject to a court order whose explicit terms prohibits the use of physical force against an intimate partner or child. [3]

Contents

The Fifth Circuit engaged in an extensive analysis of the text and history of the Second Amendment and its attendant case law, including many state supreme court decisions, and ultimately determined that the Second Amendment "protects the right of individuals to privately" keep and bear arms. Nonetheless, the court held that the particular deprivation of the right to bear arms in the case before it did not violate the Constitution, and it also acknowledged the federal government's sharp limitations on disarming of individual Americans. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari to review of the Fifth Circuit's decision. [2]

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with Emerson in Silveira v. Lockyer . [4] In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right in Parker v. District of Columbia , [5] which was reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller . [6] The Supreme Court ruled in its decision that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

In McDonald v. Chicago , [7] the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment against the states by ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That mooted the questions that had remained in Nordyke v. King . [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right.

<i>Silveira v. Lockyer</i>

Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution did not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA), California legislation that banned the manufacture, sale, transportation, or importation of specified semi-automatic firearms. The plaintiffs alleged that various provisions of the AWCA infringed upon their individual constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

José A. Cabranes American judge

José Alberto Cabranes is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a former Presiding Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISCR"). Formerly a practicing lawyer, government official, and law teacher, he was the first Puerto Rican appointed to a federal judgeship in the continental United States (1979).

Milan Smith American judge

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009.

Stephen Reinhardt American judge

Stephen Roy Reinhardt was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with chambers in Los Angeles, California. He was the last federal appeals court judge in active service to have been appointed by President Jimmy Carter.

D. Brooks Smith American judge

David Brookman Smith, known professionally as D. Brooks Smith, is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously Chief Judge of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and is the only judge in the history of the Third Circuit to have served as both a chief district judge and chief of the Court of Appeals. Beginning January 2022, Smith will begin to serve as Penn State Law's new jurist in residence.

In the United States, access to guns is controlled by law under a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state agencies and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States 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 requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held, "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." It states that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the states, and that the right to peaceably assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

William Lockhart Garwood was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Frank John Magill was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

<i>Nordyke v. King</i>

Nordyke v. King was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a ban of firearms on all public property and whether the Second Amendment should be applied to the state and local governments is to be decided. After several hearings at different levels of the federal court system, Alameda County, California promised that gun shows could be held on county property, essentially repudiating its ordinance.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Kachalsky v. Cacace is a case regarding the constitutionality of "may-issue" concealed carry laws. The plaintiffs, Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura, originally sought an injunction barring Susan Cacace, handgun licensing authority for co-Defendant Westchester County, New York, from enforcing a requirement of New York State law that applicants for handgun carry permits demonstrate "proper cause" for the issuance of a handgun license and subsequent carry of a handgun in public.

People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321, was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.

The right to keep and bear arms in the United States is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states. The Second Amendment declares:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

<i>Peruta v. San Diego County</i>

Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.

References

  1. United States v. Emerson, 270F.3d203 (5th Cir.2001).
  2. 1 2 Cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907(2002), 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002).
  3. "United States v. Emerson". Lawschool.courtroomview.com. Retrieved 2011-08-13.
  4. Silveira v. Lockyer , 312F.3d1052 (9th Cir.2002).
  5. Parker v. District of Columbia , 478F.3d370 (D.C. Cir.2007).
  6. District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
  7. McDonald v. Chicago , 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
  8. Nordyke v. King , 644F.3d776 (9th Cir.2011).