Comm2A files an Amicus in Henderson v. US

[KBCraig]

The appellant's proposal has never been against federal law. It takes a special kind of nanny to come up with "potential constructive possession" in order to deprive someone of the value of his property.

It might be pedantic, but I often have to point out that nothing bans (federally) a felon or other prohibited person from owning firearms. They just can't possess them.

 

[soam]

It does seem like this case could have some relevance, if only tangentially, to Jarvis v. Village Vault as it affirms the fact that even though someone may lose their right to possess their property, they still own said property and have a right to decide how it is disposed of.

 

[browncoat]

It does seem like this case could have some relevance, if only tangentially, to Jarvis v. Village Vault as it affirms the fact that even though someone may lose their right to possess their property, they still own said property and have a right to decide how it is disposed of.

I didn't see the updates on the thread yesterday, but this is what I'm hoping for as well.

 

[willbdavis]

It does seem like this case could have some relevance, if only tangentially, to Jarvis v. Village Vault as it affirms the fact that even though someone may lose their right to possess their property, they still own said property and have a right to decide how it is disposed of.

This is how I read it. One more good step forward! And, as terraformer says, no steps backward in this ruling either.

 

[goodzilla]

It does seem like this case could have some relevance, if only tangentially, to Jarvis v. Village Vault as it affirms the fact that even though someone may lose their right to possess their property, they still own said property and have a right to decide how it is disposed of.

I could easily see that the court and defendants will argue against applicability. They'll argue that Jarvis retained ownership of the property within the construct of the MA laws. The fact that property value was bled to the point where Jarvis did not (or could not) recoup property value is not VV's fault (I do not agree, btw) because VV needed to be compensated for it's efforts to catalog and store the firearms, per MA law.

I'm confused about something the VV case and the Comm2a approach. I think we can all agree that VV are *******s, and charged "unreasonable" fees to catalog and store firearms, bleeding value and ultimately depriving Jarvis of property. However what I never understood is that wouldn't it have been more easier and straightforward to bring suit against the state? In my mind, MA law is the source that does not provide for what's "reasonable" for storage fees, it's also the source of the problem that allows warehouses to charge fees prior to notification of storage (this burden could be on the local PD prior to transfer). Ultimately, the law is what currently allows local PD's to skirt the 1 year requirement for storage by handing off to for-profit bonded warehouses which deprived Jarvis of property.

Regardless of my confusion of suing VV instead of the state, could Henderson v. US now provide a new platform to challenge the constitutionality of the MA statute?