ScottDLS wrote:ELB wrote:ScottDLS wrote: .... So why hasn't the original gone up again to possibly get upheld by a Hillary court? ....
Because, in the eyes of the SCOTUS, the second GFSZA remedied the defect of the first one: it included the magic words (or jurisdictional element) "interstate commerce." Presto! Constitutional!
It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
This jurisdictional element was challenged up to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled it was sufficient to make the GFSZA constitutional. The current GFSZA has been challenged up to the Circuit Court level several times, but never held to be unconstitutional. The only time a conviction under it is overturned (that I know of) is when the government failed to prove someone knew he was in a school zone, or the person had a state carry license or permit.
Has the SCOTUS denied certiorari on this being appealed from the 9th Circuit that upheld it? Or was the 9th circuit challenge an actual conviction being upheld, and what were the circumstances of the conviction? Was the defendant also in violation of state law? 5th circuit ruled on applicability of an Alabama permit to a violation of the law in Alabama, but did not go to the question of interstate commerce because the defendant had an Alabama permit.
I assume we are talking the GFSZA, which is sorta off the main thread here, but: US v Niko Delano Dorsey in 9th. I don't know of any appeal to SCOTUS (be careful, there is a more famous Dorsey case that went to SCOTUS, but different guy). Dorsey was initially arrested for some local issues, trespassing at a school and reckless driving, don't know if those were prosecuted at local level. When he was arrested he was also found to have drugs and a gun in the car, while it was on school property, which was prosecuted at federal level (every case I have read involving GFSZA, the defendant was picked up for something else first). Dorsey's appeal challenged both the legitimacy of the search that found the drugs and gun, and the constitutionality of the GFSZA, lost on both.
In the Alabama case, I assume you are referring to Tait? IIRC he did not raise constitutionality as an issue, so it was not addressed. In his case, I believe he was initially arrested, or at least detained, because of some possible local law violation, but at federal level he was charged with felon-in-possession and gun in a GFSZ. However he won in Federal district Court because all his rights were restored after he served time for a felony conviction in another state, and he had an Alabama carry license. The Feds appealed that to the Circuit level but they agreed with the trial court.