In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Trial date set in Second Amendment case - Emerson
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Trial date set in Second Amendment case
By the Associated Press
SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) -- A former San Angelo doctor who challenged a federal law in Second Amendment case will be retried Aug. 19 in federal court in Lubbock.
The date was set Friday for Timothy Emerson, who will stand trial for possessing a firearm while under a restraining order.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in October overturned U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings' ruling that dismissed the charge against Emerson.
Emerson was charged in 1998 after buying a pistol while under a restraining order during a divorce proceeding.
The case had gun rights implications because Cummings ruled that the federal statute used to charge Emerson violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 5th circuit determined that an individual has a right to bear arms -- a victory for gun rights advocates -- but that the right could be restricted under some circumstances.
Emerson faces a maximum five-year sentence and $250,000 fine, U.S. Assistant Attorney Roger McRoberts told the San Angelo Standard-Times in Saturday's editions.
Emerson's attorney, David Guinn, couldn't be reached for comment.
In June, the Supreme Court said it would not hear the case and a similar gun-rights case.
http://www.reporternews.com/2002/texas/texas_Trial_dat83.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By the Associated Press
SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) -- A former San Angelo doctor who challenged a federal law in Second Amendment case will be retried Aug. 19 in federal court in Lubbock.
The date was set Friday for Timothy Emerson, who will stand trial for possessing a firearm while under a restraining order.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in October overturned U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings' ruling that dismissed the charge against Emerson.
Emerson was charged in 1998 after buying a pistol while under a restraining order during a divorce proceeding.
The case had gun rights implications because Cummings ruled that the federal statute used to charge Emerson violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 5th circuit determined that an individual has a right to bear arms -- a victory for gun rights advocates -- but that the right could be restricted under some circumstances.
Emerson faces a maximum five-year sentence and $250,000 fine, U.S. Assistant Attorney Roger McRoberts told the San Angelo Standard-Times in Saturday's editions.
Emerson's attorney, David Guinn, couldn't be reached for comment.
In June, the Supreme Court said it would not hear the case and a similar gun-rights case.
http://www.reporternews.com/2002/texas/texas_Trial_dat83.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
By: Robert Pore, of the Plainsman August 03, 2002
ROBERT PORE/PLAINSMAN
Larry Dodge of Rapid City and Jim Christen of Huron were at the South Dakota State Fair Friday promoting Amendment A, which voters will decide on during the Nov. 5 election.
On Nov. 5, South Dakota voters will vote on a constitutional amendment that will bring common sense to the justice system, said Larry Dodge of Rapid City.
Dodge, who was at the South Dakota State Fair Friday, said what Amendment A boils down to is allowing people accused of crimes to make a commonsense argument in their own defense in court.
"A lot of times you are not allowed to argue about the law, whether the law is silly or passed by a special interest group or if it doesn't make sense - any number of examples," he said.
The proposed amendment to South Dakota's Constitution that will be on the Nov. 5 ballot reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to argue the merits, validity and applicability of the law, including sentencing laws."
Dodge said Amendment A would let an accused person make arguments about the law itself to the judge or jury, in a case where the law in question doesn't seem to make sense, or in cases where it seems that a well-intended law is being wrongly applied.
He gave the example of a man in Huron who had to fight off an attacking dog with his cane. The courts said the new animal rights law did not allow him to argue self-defense, so he was convicted of cruelty to animals.
Dodge said there are four states that have something in their constitutions that says that the jury is the judge of both the law and the fact.
"When that is in there, that means the lawyer can argue about the law and the facts of the case to the jury," he said. "South Dakota doesn't have it and three of those other four states do not have enabling legislation so the constitutional language can be applied."
With Amendment A, Dodge said they are taking a slightly different approach.
"Instead of enabling the jury to do all of these good things, we are enabling the defendant to argue the case to the jury," he said. "That makes his arguments about the law or whatever he wants to argue about into evidence that the jury will consider. It's all about letting the defendant tell his own story."
Dodge said the basis of Amendment A is a very old concept, but it has been neglected in modern times. He said up to about a century ago accused people could make arguments about the laws they were being convicted of to the judge and jury.
In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that if a judge fails to tell the jury about its law judging capabilities, that is not cause for error or appeal.
"Since then, it has just tapered away," Dodge said. "It was still in use during Prohibition where juries were judging the Volstead Act not to be a very good law. But by the time of the Vietnam War, there were only a few attorneys and jurors that could remember that you could argue about the law, which in that case was the draft law."
Dodge said what Amendment A is all about is bringing that concept back as part of our Democratic system.
"It's about letting people have a source of input to the Legislature what they think about the law," he said. "Writing letters and voting for these people doesn't seem to be a sufficient handle."
Dodge said most people he has talked to at the State Fair understand what Amendment A is all about, but some people are confusing it with the Amendment A ballot issue that the public voted on in June.
To get the new Amendment A on the Nov. 5 ballot, supporters collected 34,000 signatures.
Opponents, Dodge said, argue that Amendment A will be expensive to implement in the court system and would create a flood of jury trials.
"The fact is, I think it would save on the appeals process because you would be able to tell your whole story the first time and there would be nothing left to appeal," he said.
Dodge said he expects prosecutors to be against Amendment A.
"Most prosecutors are building their reputation as people who promote law and order and convict," he said. "But sometimes they forget about justice while they are so busy convicting. My biggest concern about the prosecutors is that they are building a win-loss record that they can ride upward politically on and somebody's fair trial is going to go out the window here and there because of that."
For more information about Amendment A, call 1-877-687-5297 or on the Internet: www.commonsensejustice.us
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=4942004&BRD=1128&PAG=461&dept_id=97933&rfi=6
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878