- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,595
- Likes
- 33,704
Two thoughts:
#1: The Oregon case never raised the issue of "incidental to lawful purpose" in the law, nor did it raise he issue that the regulation he was convicted of violating was inconsistent with federal law allowing carry incidental to lawful use. In short, the case never addressed the central issue but relied on general 2nd ammendment assertions (which rarely succeed) - and is, perhaps, an example of how licensed legal counsel not familiar with all nuances of gun issues is not always equipped to bring forth the best case. I suspect any of the Big Three on NES would have done a better job of focusing on what should have been the main issue of the case.
#2: The MA Guide to Firearms Law was written by a MA police chief. If a federal LE official stated that carry was lawful one would be able to assert an entrapment by estoppel defense, however, the courts have held that in order for the defense to be applicable to a federal charge, the statement that the activity was lawful must have been made by a federal official (United States v. Rector) - the defense is unavailable when the defendant in a federal case claims a state level LE official told him an activity was permitted by federal law.
#1: The Oregon case never raised the issue of "incidental to lawful purpose" in the law, nor did it raise he issue that the regulation he was convicted of violating was inconsistent with federal law allowing carry incidental to lawful use. In short, the case never addressed the central issue but relied on general 2nd ammendment assertions (which rarely succeed) - and is, perhaps, an example of how licensed legal counsel not familiar with all nuances of gun issues is not always equipped to bring forth the best case. I suspect any of the Big Three on NES would have done a better job of focusing on what should have been the main issue of the case.
#2: The MA Guide to Firearms Law was written by a MA police chief. If a federal LE official stated that carry was lawful one would be able to assert an entrapment by estoppel defense, however, the courts have held that in order for the defense to be applicable to a federal charge, the statement that the activity was lawful must have been made by a federal official (United States v. Rector) - the defense is unavailable when the defendant in a federal case claims a state level LE official told him an activity was permitted by federal law.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
