 |
|
 Legal news from Sunday, March 6, 2011 |
|
|
Third Circuit rejects Second Amendment rights for felons
Daniel Makosky on March 6, 2011 12:58 PM ET
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] on Friday ruled [opinion, PDF] that barring convicted felons from possessing firearms does not infringe upon their constitutional rights. Attorneys for James Barton, previously convicted on drug and weapons charges, argued that his 2007 arrest on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 USC § 922(g)(1) [text] constitutes a violation of Barton's Second Amendment [text] rights. The court's ruling acknowledges an individual's right to bear arms as "fundamental," but also recognizes the validity of "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms," including prior felony convictions. Responding to Barton's citation to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], in which the right to possess a handgun in one's home for the purpose of self-defense was upheld, the court noted that the decision was conditioned on a finding that the party is "not 'disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights.'" Per the court, the nature of Barton's earlier offenses and their correlation with violent crime rendered the argument inapplicable.
In June, the US Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] in a 5-4 decision that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to states as well as the federal government. In the case of McDonald v. Chicago [Cornell LII backgrounder], the Supreme Court struck down the city's ordinance that effectively banned the possession of handguns in the city. The ruling was premised in part on the Heller decision, in that that the Second Amendment right to own firearms for lawful purposes is not unlimited.
Link |
|
subscribe |
 |
latest newscast |
archive |
 Facebook page
|
Utah legislature approves new version of Arizona-style immigration bill
Carrie Schimizzi on March 6, 2011 12:18 PM ET
[JURIST] The Utah House and Senate [official websites] on Friday approved a new Arizona-style immigration law. The Utah Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act [HB 497 text, PDF] replaces the older version [HB 70 text, PDF] of the law that had lost favor with state Senate members in the last few weeks. The new law omits [text, PDF] the controversial language [Salt Lake Tribune report] that critics had accused of being too similar to the controversial Arizona-style law. The Utah law still requires police officers to question any individual about their immigration status if stopped for a felony or serious misdemeanor, but now omits the "reasonable suspicion" standard for police officials. The new law also clarifies that any inquiry into the legal status of a person stopped for a lesser misdemeanor is optional. The new law also eliminates a provision that would have made it mandatory for anyone in Utah to carry identification with them at all times. Critics of the law, however, remain skeptical [Salt Lake Tribune report] as to whether the changes are significant enough to differentiate Utah's immigration policies from those of Arizona.
The older version of the bill, sponsored by Representative Stephen Sandstrom (R) [official profile], was approved by the House [JURIST report] last month, but the bill soon lost favor in the Senate, causing Sandstrom to abandon the bill [Salt Lake Tribune report] and draft a new version. Several states have enacted or proposed legislation [JURIST reports] similar to the controversial Arizona immigration law [JURIST news archive]. The Arizona law, which has been widely criticized as unconstitutional for allegedly legalizing racial profiling, has sparked a nationwide debate on immigration policy, prompting calls for immigration reform [JURIST report] from President Barack Obama [official profile]. In October, a judge for the US District Court in the District of Arizona [official website] denied [order, PDF] motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law. Two other lawsuits [JURIST report] challenging the law were filed last year and are still pending.
Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page
|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|
