- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,824
Thank god the first case was not argued that way. If it were to come up now, the answer SHOULD (if the justices are even half heartedly trying to be constitutional) be different now than they seem to hint at would have been the case then.
The second case, I am pretty sure Jones is mooted by further case law (if not an appeal of that very ruling). And if not, there is precedent on the horizon in federal court that wipes it out anyhow. See US v. Herrington in the DC court of appeals. http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/pdf/07-CF-98_MTD.PDF Note the part about the licensing. They require the city to prove that element of the crime and this is a proper ruling vis a vie Patterson v. NY supra. Ironically Patterson relies on a case called Snyder v. Massachusetts from the early 1900s for the case law that on point makes Jones invalid post mcdonald.
ETA: re jones: Bottom of page 1.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...criminal/pdf/7620-possession-of-a-firearm.pdf
Defendant needs to raise some credible claim, but the state has to prove it to be false so it appears that jones is partially still in effect in that the defense needs to raise the credible claim to force the state to prove it otherwise.
The second case, I am pretty sure Jones is mooted by further case law (if not an appeal of that very ruling). And if not, there is precedent on the horizon in federal court that wipes it out anyhow. See US v. Herrington in the DC court of appeals. http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/pdf/07-CF-98_MTD.PDF Note the part about the licensing. They require the city to prove that element of the crime and this is a proper ruling vis a vie Patterson v. NY supra. Ironically Patterson relies on a case called Snyder v. Massachusetts from the early 1900s for the case law that on point makes Jones invalid post mcdonald.
ETA: re jones: Bottom of page 1.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...criminal/pdf/7620-possession-of-a-firearm.pdf
Defendant needs to raise some credible claim, but the state has to prove it to be false so it appears that jones is partially still in effect in that the defense needs to raise the credible claim to force the state to prove it otherwise.
Last edited: