Supreme Court upholds 5-year mandatory sentence for gun possession

[JollyRoger]

The Court’s sentencing law decision resolved a dispute among lower courts about the effect of a 12-year-old change of the federal law that adds at least five years to a criminal’s prison sentence for using or carrying a gun during either a drug crime or a crime of violence. That added period of years extends beyond any sentence for the underlying crime. Congress provided that extra punishment, the Court recalled in Monday’s decision, to punish independently for having a gun during a criminal episode.

That goal, the Court decided in Abbott v. U.S. (09-479) and Gould v. U.S. (09-7073), would be undercut if the 1998 revision of the law were interpreted to set aside the additional term in some cases. Upholding the federal government’s view, the Court ruled that those who violate the criminal ban on gun possession or use must always get at least an extra five years, unless some other law added even more time to the prison term. (The Court ruling, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was unanimous, although Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in it.)

The practical effect of the ruling can be seen in the two specific cases the Justices decided.

Kevin Abbott (in case 09-479) was convicted of several cocaine crimes, and of being a convicted felon with a gun, as well as for using the gun during the cocaine crimes. He got a 15-year sentence for the felon-in-possession conviction, and then five years were tacked on for having the gun during the drug offenses. He contended that the 1998 law exempted him from the extra five years, because he already had been subject to a greater minimum sentence — that is, the 15 years on the felon-in-possession charge.

Carlos Rashad Gould pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and with possessing a gun during that crime. He received a mandatory ten-year sentence for the cocaine trafficking offense, plus the extra five years for the gun possession. He contended that the extra five years were invalid, because of the mandatory minimum he already faced for drug trafficking.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/a-day-for-criminal-law/

Looks like gun grabbing is back in force at the Supreme Court. In an 8-0 decision, the Court upheld a law that infringes mere possession by imposing a mandatory five year sentence for posession. Note that the punishment is for possession. The underlying crime is punished separately. Mere possession of the gun is needed to trigger the mandatory five year sentence rather than actual use of the gun in the crime. At least Justice Kagan had the good sense to recuse herself from the case.

 

[SerriaFox]

no it doesn't punish possession. It punish possession While committing a crime

 

[Cutlass]

no it doesn't punish possession. It punish possession While committing a crime

So? "not be infringed' doesn't say a damned thing about that.

 

[JollyRoger]

no it doesn't punish possession. It punish possession While committing a crime

Should I get an extra 5 years for not quartering a soldier while committing a crime?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I wholeheartedly support the Supreme Court's decision on this.

Holding a gun while committing a crime tells me that you intend to perhaps use that gun while committing the crime. Maybe you didn't get a chance to do so. Maybe you only wanted to frighten people with it. Maybe you didn't intend to shoot it. Maybe your finger slipped.

I don't really care. Take a gun with you to do a crime, and that makes it a lot harder for the police to take you into custody without feeling that their lives are in danger. You could accidentally shoot someone who startles you, because while committing a crime, you're probably in a state of anxiousness and/or panic.

Not having a gun means the cops probably don't have to shoot you to take you down. It's for your safety and theirs. This law won't deter certain folks who would commit the crime anyway, but it will keep them off the street longer, and for these folks, that's all I care about.

So? "not be infringed' doesn't say a damned thing about that.

Pshhh. We don't allow prisoners to have proper cutting knives in prison, let alone guns. Infringe doesn't enter into it.

You commit a crime, you LOSE your privileges.

 

[JollyRoger]

The law doesn't require you to hold the gun. Merely possess it.

 

[Xanikk999]

Mandatory sentences should be considered unconstitutional.

I don't know how anyone can find this fair. A crimes severity should be on a case by case basic. Mandatory sentencing is a slap in the face on a fair judicial process.

 

[Cutlass]

I wholeheartedly support the Supreme Court's decision on this.

Holding a gun while committing a crime tells me that you intend to perhaps use that gun while committing the crime. Maybe you didn't get a chance to do so. Maybe you only wanted to frighten people with it. Maybe you didn't intend to shoot it. Maybe your finger slipped.

I don't really care. Take a gun with you to do a crime, and that makes it a lot harder for the police to take you into custody without feeling that their lives are in danger. You could accidentally shoot someone who startles you, because while committing a crime, you're probably in a state of anxiousness and/or panic.

Not having a gun means the cops probably don't have to shoot you to take you down. It's for your safety and theirs. This law won't deter certain folks who would commit the crime anyway, but it will keep them off the street longer, and for these folks, that's all I care about.



Pshhh. We don't allow prisoners to have proper cutting knives in prison, let alone guns. Infringe doesn't enter into it.

You commit a crime, you LOSE your privileges.

And a 'strict constructionist' would care about that why?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

The law doesn't require you to hold the gun. Merely possess it.

Good, that gets rid of the gray area where the guy puts the gun away just before the cops arrive.

 

[SerriaFox]

So? "not be infringed' doesn't say a damned thing about that.

Good point.

If the gun is concealed during the crime, but they are caught red handed and a search reveals it, i would probably agree that shall not be infringe be used.

However if the gun is seen, even if partially concealed and not actively used it could be an element in controlling the victim, and thus a crime.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

And a 'strict constructionist' would care about that why?

Strict constructionists are a walking joke.

The Constitution as written is a joke. It needed to be amended to be worth a dime.

Frankly I don't care what a strict constructionist thinks, because they think black people are 3/5ths of a person.

 

[SerriaFox]

because they think black people are 2/5ths of a person.

Yet they were 0 bit voter. 2/5 was anti slavery.

 

[JollyRoger]

Good, that gets rid of the gray area where the guy puts the gun away just before the cops arrive.

What about the guy that doesn't? Someone merely exercising his concealed carry rights while making the routine sell to Rush Limbaugh?

 

[.Shane.]

Frankly I don't care what a strict constructionist thinks, because they think black people are 2/5ths of a person.

You mean 3/5ths.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Yeah, this doesn't make much sense at all. I'm shocked to hear that it was a near unanimous 8-0 decision.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yet they were 0 bit voter. 2/5 was anti slavery.

Still an affont to human dignity and a weak "compromise" which only delayed our problems until they came to a head with the civil war.

That's what happens when you appease intolerant bigots. They make you compromise until you half-agree that minorities aren't people. A stain on our history, showing how foolish attempting to be bipartisan with blowhards can be.

You mean 3/5ths.

Ah, corrected. Typing too fast.

 

[.Shane.]

Why did Kagan recuse?

 

[Seon]

Strict constructionists are a walking joke.

The Constitution as written is a joke. It needed to be amended to be worth a dime.

Frankly I don't care what a strict constructionist thinks, because they think black people are 3/5ths of a person.

3/5th actually

Edit: darn it shane.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

What about the guy that doesn't? Someone merely exercising his concealed carry rights while making the routine sell to Rush Limbaugh?

You mean a law-abiding citizen? Seems obvious to me.

If you're referring to the idea that sometimes the system makes mistakes, maybe you should look at the death penalty before looking at 5 years.

 

[warpus]

So if you're smoking a marjuana cigarette (aka a joint) and have a gun on you, you could spend 5 years in jail? Plus whatever other time you'd get for the joint?