DOCSLIB.ORG

Young V. Hawaii, 911 F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Young V. Hawaii, 911 F FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEORGE K. YOUNG, JR., No. 12-17808 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 1:12-cv-00336- HG-BMK STATE OF HAWAII; NEIL ABERCROMBIE, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii; OPINION DAVID MARK LOUIE I, Esquire, in his capacity as State Attorney General; COUNTY OF HAWAII, as a sub-agency of the State of Hawaii; WILLIAM P. KENOI, in his capacity as Mayor of the County of Hawaii; HILO COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, as a sub-agency of the County of Hawaii; HARRY S. KUBOJIRI, in his capacity as Chief of Police; JOHN DOES, 1–25; JANE DOES, 1–25; DOE CORPORATIONS, 1–5; DOE ENTITIES, 1–5, Defendants-Appellees. 2 YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted En Banc September 24, 2020 San Francisco, California Filed March 24, 2021 Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher, Richard R. Clifton, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Sandra S. Ikuta, Michelle T. Friedland and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Bybee; Dissent by Judge O’Scannlain; Dissent by Judge R. Nelson YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII 3 SUMMARY* Civil Rights The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action challenging Hawai‘i’s firearm licensing law, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 134-9(a), which requires that residents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.” Appellant George Young applied for a firearm-carry license twice in 2011, but failed to identify “the urgency or the need” to openly carry a firearm in public. Instead, Young relied upon his general desire to carry a firearm for self- defense. Both of Young’s applications were denied. Young brought a challenge to Hawai‘i’s firearm-licensing law under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld Hawai‘i’s statute. The en banc court first held that the scope of its review would be limited to Young’s facial challenge to HRS § 134-9. There was no need to determine whether Hawai‘i County properly applied § 134-9, because Young did not bring an as- applied challenge. The en banc court noted that this Court has previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII to carry concealed weapons in public. Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The question presented in this case, accordingly, was limited to whether individuals have a right to carry weapons openly in public. To answer that question, and consistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the en banc court first considered whether Hawai‘i’s law affects conduct protected by the Second Amendment. After careful review of the history of early English and American regulation of carrying arms openly in the public square, the en banc court concluded that Hawai‘i’s restrictions on the open carrying of firearms reflect longstanding prohibitions, and therefore, the conduct they regulate is outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment. The en banc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawai‘i’s firearms-carry scheme is lawful. The en banc court rejected Young’s argument that HRS § 134-9 is invalid as a prior restraint because it vests chiefs of police with unbridled discretion to determine whether a permit is issued. Joining its sister circuits, the en banc court held that the prior restraint doctrine does not apply to Second Amendment challenges to firearm-licensing laws. The en banc court also rejected, as premature, Young’s due process argument that HRS § 134-9 does not provide adequate process to challenge the denial of a carry-permit application. The en banc court noted that Young did not seek review under HRS § 91-9 before bringing suit. So, YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII 5 Hawai‘i has not yet denied him the opportunity for appellate review. Because Young has not actually been denied a hearing, his procedural due process claim was speculative, and there was no need to reach it. Dissenting, Judge O’Scannlain, joined by Judges Callahan, Ikuta, and R. Nelson, would hold that both HRS § 134-9 and the 1997 County regulation destroy the core right to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home and are unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny. Judge O’Scannlain stated that the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place. In his view, the majority’s decision undermines not only the Constitution’s text, but also half a millennium of Anglo-American legal history, the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and the foundational principles of American popular sovereignty itself. Dissenting, Judge R. Nelson, joined by Judges Callahan and Ikuta, concurred with Judge O’Scannlain’s dissent concluding that Hawaii Revised Statute 134-9 violates the Second Amendment. Judge R. Nelson wrote that the majority erred not only in holding the statute facially constitutional, but also in rejecting Young’s as-applied challenge. He also wrote separately to highlight the brazenly unconstitutional County of Hawaii Regulations applying HRS § 134-9, stating that there should be no dispute that any law or regulation that restricts gun ownership only to security guards violates the Second Amendment. 6 YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII COUNSEL Alan Alexander Beck (argued), San Diego, California; Stephen D. Stamboulieh, Stamboulieh Law PLLC, Madison, Mississippi; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Neal Kumar Katyal (argued), Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak, Mitchell P. Reich, and Sundeer Iyer, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C.; Clare E. Connors, Attorney General; Kimberly T. Guidry, Solicitor General; Robert T. Nakatsuji and Kaliko‘Onalani D. Fernandes, Deputy Solicitors General; Department of the Attorney General, Honolulu, Hawaii; Joseph K. Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel; Laureen L. Martin, Litigation Section Supervisor; D. Kaena Horowitz, Melody Parker, Christopher P. Schlueter, Michael J. Udovic, and Kimberly K. Angay, Deputies Corporation Counsel; Office of the Corporation Counsel, Hilo Hawaii; for Defendants-Appellees. Girard D. Lau, former Solicitor General; Kimberly T. Guidry, Solicitor General; Robert T. Nakatsuji, Deputy Solicitor General; Department of the Attorney General, Honolulu, Hawaii; for Amicus Curiae State of Hawaii. Deepak Gupta and Jonathan E. Taylor, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Eric Tirschwell and Mark Anthony Frassetto, Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, New York, New York; Janet Carter, William J. Taylor Jr., and Lisa M. Ebersole, Everytown Law, New York, New York; for Amicus Curiae Everytown for Gun Safety. Simon J. Frankel, Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, California; Paulina K. Slagter, Covington & Burling LLP, Los Angeles, California; J. Adam Skaggs and David Pucino, YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII 7 Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, New York, New York; Hannah Shearer, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, San Francisco, California; for Amicus Curiae Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General; Andrew J. Bruck, Executive Assistant Attorney General; Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Assistant Attorney General; Claudia Joy Demitro, Adam D. Klein and Tim Sheehan, Deputy Attorneys General; Attorney General’s Office, Trenton, New Jersey; Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Sacramento, California; William Tong, Attorney General, Hartford, Connecticut; Matthew P. Denn, Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware; Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, Chicago, Illinois; Tom Miller, Attorney General, Des Moines, Iowa; Maura Healey, Attorney General, Boston, Massachusetts; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, New York; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Salem, Oregon; Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General, Providence, Rhode Island; Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General; Michael J. Mongan, Solicitor General; Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Samuel P. Siegel and Helen H. Hong, Deputy Solicitors General; Jonathan M. Eisenberg and P. Patty Li, Deputy Attorneys General; Department of Justice, Sacramento, California; for Amicus Curiae State of California. 8 YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII John W. Dillon, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP, Carlsbad, California, for Amicus Curiae San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee. Richard L. Holcomb, Holcomb Law LLLC, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Amicus Curiae Hawai‘i Rifle Association. Donald L. Wilkerson, Laupahoehoe, Hawaii, for Amicus Curiae Hawaii Firearms Coalition. Herbert W. Titus, Robert J. Olson, William J. Olson, and Jeremiah L. Morgan, William J. Olson P.C., Vienna, Virginia; Joseph W. Miller, Restoring Liberty Action Committee, Fairbanks, Alaska; for Amici Curiae Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Restoring Liberty Action Committee.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 1 of 56 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for THE
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, : GUARDIAN CIVIC LEAGUE OF : CIVIL ACTION NO. PHILADELPHIA, ASPIRA, INC. OF : PENNSYLVANIA, RESIDENTS : 2000-CV-2463 ADVISORY BOARD, NORTHEAST : HOME SCHOOL AND BOARD, and : PHILADELPHIA CITIZENS FOR : CHILDREN AND YOUTH, : : Plaintiffs; : : v. : : BERETTA U.S.A., CORP., : BROWNING, INC., BRYCO ARMS, : INC., COLT’S MANUFACTURING : CO., GLOCK, INC., HARRINGTON & : RICHARDSON, INC., : INTERNATIONAL ARMAMENT : INDUSTRIES, INC., KEL-TEC, CNC, : LORCIN ENGINEERING CO., : NAVEGAR, INC., PHOENIX/RAVEN : ARMS, SMITH & WESSON CORP., : STURM, RUGER & CO., and TAURUS : INTERNATIONAL FIREARMS, : ET AL., : : Defendants. : O P I N I O N Date: December 20, 2000 Schiller, J. Page 1 of 56 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 3 STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS ......................................... 4 REGULATION OF FIREARMS .................................................. 5 FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT ......................................... 6 DISCUSSION ................................................................ 8 I. Philadelphia’s suit is barred by the Uniform Firearms Act (“UFA”) .......... 8 A. Section 6120 ................................................ 8 B. Section 6120(a.1) (“UFA Amendment”) ......................... 10 1. Plain meaning ........................................ 10 2. Impetus for statute .................................... 11 3. Legislative history ...................................
    [Show full text]
  • PICS Denial Challenge Form
    SP 4-197 (9-2016) PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE PENNSYLVANIA INSTANT CHECK SYSTEM CHALLENGE Any challenge to a decision made by the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) concerning a background check must be completed and submitted by mail (faxed copies will not be accepted), within 30 days from the date of denial to the Pennsylvania State Police, Firearms Division, PICS Challenge Section, 1800 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110. Only background checks processed through PICS that were NOT approved will be processed by the Pennsylvania State Police, PICS Challenge Section. Please type or print clearly with blue or black ink. ALL CHALLENGES SUBMITTED MUST BE LEGIBLE AND SIGNED AND DATED ON PAGE 4 BY THE APPLICANT OR THEY WILL BE RETURNED. The Pennsylvania State Police will respond in writing within 5 business days of receipt of this form. You are encouraged to provide additional information for the purpose of review, such as information you may have regarding dispositions on old arrest records, etc., that may be helpful in expediting the processing of your file. Be advised that within 60 days of receipt of a valid challenge, a final decision will be provided to you by this Office. You may also file a separate appeal with the FBI, NICS Section. PART I: REASON FOR CHALLENGE REQUEST- Check the appropriate box that indicates the type of background check: Purchase/Transfer License to Carry Firearm Return RLEIA/LEOSA PART II: DATE AND LOCATION OF BACKGROUND CHECK Date of background check: Location of Firearm Dealer/County Sheriff/Police
    [Show full text]
  • Information for Pennsylvania Firearm Purchasers and Basic Firearm Safety
    § 3502 Burglary 4. has been adjudicated as an incompetent or who has person is eligible to purchase a firearm or acquire a SP 4-135 (10-2008) § 3503 Criminal trespass, if a felony of the been involuntarily committed to a mental institution license to carry a firearm. second degree or higher for treatment under § 302, 303, or 304 under the § 3701 Robbery Mental Health Procedures Act (P.L. 817, No. 143); or Pennsylvania Firearm Dealers and County Sheriffs INFORMATION FOR 5. is an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United access the PICS program through a toll free telephone § 3702 Robbery of motor vehicle States; or number. Operation has shown that approximately 91% PENNSYLVANIA § 3921 Theft by unlawful taking or disposition, 6. is the subject of an active protection from abuse of the individuals attempting to purchase a firearm can FIREARM PURCHASERS upon conviction of the second felony order issued pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108, relating be approved while on the initial call. offense to relief, which order provides for the relinquishment § 3923 Theft by extortion, when the offense is of firearms; or By law, no record information may be disseminated as & accompanied by threats of violence 7. was adjudicated delinquent (with conditions specified a result of the background check. At times, temporary § 3925 Receiving stolen property, upon in the UFA). With the exception of crimes committed delays may be necessary. If a record is identified and BASIC under sections 2502, 2503, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2901, is incomplete, it is necessary to research the record and conviction of the second felony offense FIREARM SAFETY §4906 False reports to law enforcement 3121, 3123, 3301, 3502, 3701, and 3923, this contact the agency(s) that may be able to provide prohibition may terminate 15 years after the last information required in order to complete the authorities, if the fictitious report applicable delinquent adjudication or upon the background check.
    [Show full text]
  • The General Assembly
    1508 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY final reason for the proposed revisions is that the Com- Title 204—JUDICIAL mission seeks to clarify several issues raised by the appellate courts and relating to the sentencing guidelines, SYSTEM GENERAL such as the definition of school zone for purposes of the Youth/School Enhancement and the use of a previous PROVISIONS court-martial in the Prior Record Score calculation. PART VIII. COMMISSION ON SENTENCING Revisions to Section 303.1—Sentencing guidelines stan- dards [204 PA. CODE CH. 303] The standards contained in this section identify of- Adoption of Sentencing Guidelines fenses for which courts must consider the sentencing guidelines, and offenses to which the guidelines do not The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing is hereby apply; describe the application of the various editions of submitting revised sentencing guidelines, 204 Pa. Code the guidelines; and describe the requirements for report- §§ 303.1—303.18, for consideration by the General As- ing sentences to the Commission. sembly. The Commission adopted the revised sentencing guidelines on August 11, 2004, published them for com- The Commission included in previous Sentencing ment at 34 Pa.B. 5746 (October 23, 2004), and held public Guidelines Implementation Manuals commentary regard- hearings on December 1, 2004, December 2, 2004, Decem- ing the merger of sentences, advising courts that the ber 9, 2004 and December 14, 2004. The Commission guidelines do not apply to convictions for lesser offenses modified the proposed guidelines on December 15, 2004, which merge for sentencing purposes into greater of- published them for comment at 35 Pa.B. 198 (January 8, fenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Terms and Criminal Codes
    Glossary of Terms and Criminal Codes QUICK SEARCH: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW A A Assault A ARMED Assault, armed A INT MAIM Assault with intent to maim A TO K (or MAIM, MUR, Assault to kill (or maim, murder, rape, rob…) RAPE, ROB…) A & B Assault and Battery AA/DW Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon AA/PO Aggravated Assault police officer AA/SBI Aggravated Assault/serious bodily injury AAWW Aggravated Assault with weapon ABC Act Alcoholic Beverage Control Act ABD Abduction ABNDN or ABNDNT Abandon or Abandonment ABST Abstraction ABUS LANG Abusive language ABWIK Assault and Battery with intent to kill ACAF Accessory after the fact ACBF Accessory before the fact ACC Accessory ACC BURG Accessory to burglary ACC TO ISS CHK Accessory to issuing check ACC TO JL BRK Accessory to jail break ACC TO L Accessory to larceny ACC TO MUR Accessory to murder ACC TO ROB Accessory to robbery ACCOP DD Accompanying drunken driver ACCPL Accomplice ACCPT BRB Accepting a bribe ADJ Adjudication ADLTY Adultery ADW Assault with deadly weapon ADW/FIREARM Assault with deadly weapon/firearms AFA Alien Firearms Act A Z AFDVT Affidavit (written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law) AFFR WDW Affray (fighting in public place that disturbs peace) with deadly weapon AFO Assaulting a federal officer AGG A Aggravated Assault AID & ABET LOTT Aiding and abetting lottery AID & HAR ESC PR Aiding and harboring an escaped prisoner AID PR TO ESC Aiding a prisoner to escape AIDA Automobile Information Disclosure Act AKA Also known as ALIEN POSS FIREARMS Alien in possession of firearms ALLOW DR W/O PRMT Allowing one to drive without a permit ALT Altering ANNOY & SOL Annoying and soliciting APC Actual physical control APCV Actual physical control of a vehicle APIPOCC Appropriating property in possession of common carrier APP.
    [Show full text]
  • BARRY JAMES DEEMER Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution - Criminal Attempt to Commit Homicide
    BARRY JAMES DEEMER Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution - Criminal Attempt to Commit Homicide Age Progressed Photograph - 2014 DESCRIPTION Date(s) of Birth Used: December 16, 1944 Place of Birth: Pennsylvania Hair: Brown Eyes: Green Height: 5'9" Weight: 240 pounds Sex: Male Race: White Occupation: Deemer has been known to sell items at flea markets. Nationality: American These items are usually knock-offs and fakes. Scars and Marks: Deemer has scars on his right wrist and right NCIC: W984713307 ankle. REMARKS Deemer plays multiple musical instruments, including the accordion. He is known to frequent auto shows and gun shows, as well as flea markets. He may travel to Carlyle, Pennsylvania, and Covington, Kentucky to attend these shows. Deemer may be traveling with his girlfriend, Sally Ann Suttle. She is described as a White female with a Date of Birth of October 29, 1956. She may work as a nurse and has previously lived in Hawaii. She is not a fugitive from the law. CAUTION Barry James Deemer is wanted for his alleged attempt to solicit an individual to assist in the murder of his ex-girlfriend in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, in late October of 1995. Deemer allegedly supplied an individual with an unregistered, semi-automatic pistol and ammunition to be used in the murder of the woman. Deemer was charged via a criminal complaint in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in Westmoreland County on October 24, 1995, for criminal solicitation to commit murder, violation of the Uniform Firearms Act - possession of a firearm without a license, violation of the Uniform Firearms Act - lending of a firearm without a license, and violation of the Uniform Firearms Act - sale or transfer of a firearm to an unlicensed person.
    [Show full text]
  • Firearms Removal/Retrieval in Cases of Domestic Violence
    1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 5 NOTES ON THE TEXT ..................................................................................................................... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 7 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 14 SCOPE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................. 14 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDE DATA............................................................................................. 14 Chart 1 ................................................................................................................................... 15 WHY THIS REPORT IS NECESSARY .................................................................................................. 16 AUTHORITY FOR REMOVAL/RETRIEVAL .................................................................................. 17 CIVIL PROTECTIVE ORDERS ........................................................................................................... 17 Explicit Authority ...................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 1 .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The General Assembly Hereby Declares That the Purpose of This Act Is to Provide Support to Law Enforcement in the Area of Crime
    1024 Act 1995-17 (SSI) LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1995-17 (SS1) AN ACT HB 110 Amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for the possessionof firearms; establishing a selected Statewide juvenile offender registry; and making an appropriation. The General Assembly hereby declares that the purpose of this act is to provide support to law enforcement in the area of crime prevention and control, that it is not the purpose of this act to place any undue or unnecessary restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with:respectlo:the acquisition, possession, transfer, transportation or use of firearms, rifles or shotguns for personal protection, hunting, target shooting, employment or any other lawful activity, and that this actis not intended to discourage or restrict the private ownership and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes or to provide for the imposition by rules or regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those necessary to implement and effectuate the provisionsof thisact. The General Assembly herebyrecognizes and declares its support of the fundamental constitutional right of Commonwealth citizens to bear anus in defense of themselves and this Commonwealth. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows: Section 1. Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a section to read: § 913. Possession offirearm or other dangerous weapon in
    [Show full text]
  • The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship University of Denver Sturm College of Law 2015 The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation David B. Kopel Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/law_facpub Part of the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Forthcoming This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation Publication Statement Copyright held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance. This paper is available at Digital Commons @ DU: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/law_facpub/46 The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation By David B. Kopel1 The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence has paid careful attention to the Second Amendment in the nineteenth century. District of Columbia v. Heller cited with approval antebellum cases which struck down handgun bans, or which upheld restrictions on concealed handgun carry, while affirming the right of open carry.2 Both Heller and McDonald v. Chicago looked closely at the civil rights movement after the Civil War, when Congress enacted legislation and the people ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, partly for the purpose of making the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments.3 Heller also said that some “longstanding” gun controls could be considered “presumptively lawful.”4 So scholars have been mining nineteenth-century statutes and cases to understand what types of gun laws have nineteenth-century roots.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 204. Judicial System General Provisions Part VIII Criminal Sentencing Chapter 303
    Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing Title 204. Judicial System General Provisions Part VIII Criminal Sentencing Chapter 303. Sentencing Guidelines §303.1. Sentencing guidelines standards. (a) The court shall consider the sentencing guidelines in determining the appropriate sentence for offenders convicted of, or pleading guilty or nolo contendere to, felonies and misdemeanors. Where crimes merge for sentencing purposes, the court shall consider the sentencing guidelines only on the offense assigned the higher offense Gravity score. (b) The sentencing guidelines do not apply to sentences imposed as a result of the following: accelerated rehabilitative disposition; disposition in lieu of trial; direct or indirect contempt of court; violations of protection from abuse orders; revocation of probation, intermediate punishment or parole. (c) The sentencing guidelines shall apply to all offenses committed on or after the effective date of the guidelines. Amendments to the guidelines shall apply to all offenses committed on or after the date the amendment becomes part of the guidelines. (1) When there are current multiple convictions for offenses that overlap two sets of guidelines, the former guidelines shall apply to offenses that occur prior to the effective date of the amendment and the later guidelines shall apply to offenses that occur on or after the effective date of the amendment. If the specific dates of the offenses cannot be determined, then the later guidelines shall apply to all offenses. (2) The initial sentencing guidelines went into effect on July 22, 1982 and applied to all crimes committed on or after that date. Amendments to the guidelines went into effect in June 1983, January 1986 and June 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Title 18 Crimes and Offenses Part I
    TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE 18 CRIMES AND OFFENSES PART I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Chapter 1. General Provisions § 101. Short title of title. § 102. Territorial applicability. § 103. Definitions. § 104. Purposes. § 105. Principles of construction. § 106. Classes of offenses. § 107. Application of preliminary provisions. § 108. Time limitations. § 109. When prosecution barred by former prosecution for the same offense. § 110. When prosecution barred by former prosecution for different offense. § 111. When prosecution barred by former prosecution in another jurisdiction. § 112. Former prosecution before court lacking jurisdiction or when fraudulently procured by the defendant. Chapter 3. Culpability § 301. Requirement of voluntary act. § 302. General requirements of culpability. § 303. Causal relationship between conduct and result. § 304. Ignorance or mistake. § 305. Limitations on scope of culpability requirements. § 306. Liability for conduct of another; complicity. § 307. Liability of organizations and certain related persons. § 308. Intoxication or drugged condition. § 309. Duress. § 310. Military orders. § 311. Consent. § 312. De minimis infractions. § 313. Entrapment. § 314. Guilty but mentally ill. § 315. Insanity. Chapter 5. General Principles of Justification § 501. Definitions. § 502. Justification a defense. § 503. Justification generally. § 504. Execution of public duty. § 505. Use of force in self-protection. § 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons. § 507. Use of force for the protection of property. § 508. Use of force in law enforcement. § 509. Use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others. § 510. Justification in property crimes. Chapter 7. Responsibility (Reserved) Chapter 9. Inchoate Crimes § 901. Criminal attempt. § 902. Criminal solicitation. § 903. Criminal conspiracy. § 904. Incapacity, irresponsibility or immunity of party to solicitation or conspiracy.
    [Show full text]
  • J-E04004-17 2020 PA Super 107 COMMONWEALTH OF
    J-E04004-17 2020 PA Super 107 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : EMILY JOY GROSS : : Appellant : No. 375 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Order January 15, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0000045-2010 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED APRIL 29, 2020 Appellant, Emily Joy Gross, appeals from the order entered in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her omnibus pretrial motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. We affirm. Our Supreme Court set forth the relevant facts of this case as follows: [Ms.] Gross and Daniel Autenrieth began a romantic relationship in early 2009. On May 4, 2009, Autenrieth’s estranged wife filed a protection from abuse (PFA) petition against him in Northampton County where she lived. The court issued a temporary PFA order the same day prohibiting Autenrieth from having contact with his wife or children and evicting him from the marital residence. The same day, deputies from the Northampton Sheriff’s office went to Autenrieth’s residence (also in Northampton County) to serve the temporary PFA order and to transfer custody of the children to Autenrieth’s wife. [Ms.] Gross was present, babysitting the children, and a deputy served the order on her as the adult in charge of the residence. The deputy incorrectly told [Ms.] Gross the temporary PFA order prohibited Autenrieth from possessing firearms.
    [Show full text]