Emergency Exception to the Federally Prohibited Person statute?

[OfficerObie59]

Interesting case for you legal junkies playing at home. Not much of anything to write home about, except that a federal appeals court seems rather willing to embrace an exception to federal PP's under a very particular set of circumstnaces...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-possessing-a-gun-get-it-to-break-up-a-fight/

Long story short: Defendant, a federal PP, lives in a duplex with his brother. Brother and nephew start rolling around in the walkway and defendant's wife and onlookers get concerned about nearby rocks that could possibly be used as weapons. Defendant goes inside, gets his gun, and pulls a Biden-esque blast into the sky, which stops the fight. Defendant is charged federally with being a federal PP in possession, and appeals, saying his actions were necessary to stop the fight.

I find this case interesting more for it's dicta than the holding:

We have previously declined to “recognize [] a defense of legal justification to a violation of § 922(g) [the federal ban on gun possession by felons].” We have indicated, however, that if we were to recognize the defense, we would require proof of the following four elements:


(1) that defendant was under an unlawful and “present, imminent, and impending [threat] of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury,” (2) that defendant had not “recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be [forced to choose the criminal conduct],” (3) that defendant had no “reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law, ‘a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm,’ “ and (4) “that a direct causal relationship may be reasonably anticipated between the [criminal] action and the avoidance of the [threatened] harm.”

“To be entitled to a jury instruction on a justification defense, a defendant must show ‘an underlying evidentiary foundation as to each element of the defense,’ such that a reasonable person could conclude that the evidence supported the defendant’s position.”

In closing, the court says "Sorry, you had an alternative you could've called the cops." Concurring judge says he agrees, but that the "could've called the police" reasoing is BS.

U.S. v. Cooney, http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/14/07/133078U.pdf

 

[MaynardDad]

Thanks for the summary!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

He could have used a knife ...... wow.