Posted on 08/04/2012 6:18:44 PM PDT by marktwain
The quote (from a dissent in yesterday’s Dickens v. Ryan (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2012)) comes up in an unusual context: The case was about whether Dickens could be sentenced to death for a felony-murder in which the killer was Dickens’ confederate in an armed robbery, and the specific issue was whether Dickens knew that the robbery created a grave risk of death; part of the evidence for this knowledge was that Dickens knew that the killer had a history of carrying guns. Moreover, the carrying itself was unusual, since the killer was a 14-year-old, who had run away from “a placement center for violent juveniles,” and who likely wouldn’t have a Second Amendment right. Nonetheless, given the debate among lower courts about whether the Second Amendment generally includes a right of law-abiding adults to carry guns, and not just possess them at home, the quote seemed interesting. Here’s the entire sentence:
Carrying a gun, which is a Second Amendment right, also cannot legally lead to a finding that the individual is likely to murder someone; if it could, half or even more of the people in some of our states would qualify as likely murderers.
“The more the protection of the constitutional right to carry is mentioned, the more it is accepted in judicial circles.”
____
About time!
In this case, I disagree with the judge, because the axiom under consideration is flawed. This was never a 2nd Amendment issue.
Burglary is usually distinguished from Robbery because a robber is armed. The only expectation that Dickens *might* have was that they were engaged in unarmed burglary, and thus the risk and liability for death is *lower*.
But this was not the case, as he knew that his accomplice was armed. That he was known for carrying guns is irrelevant, as is his being known as a violent juvenile.
So the rule is clear. All the accomplices to a crime are responsible to the maximum degree for *all* crimes committed by the group.
The rationale for this, among other things, is to prevent criminals from thinking that they should have a juvenile accomplice do the “dirty work”, with only them being charged as a juvenile, the adult getting away with it.
Doesn't anyone knock anymore?
Don’t know a thing about this case but it looks like Reinhardt is trying to use the 2nd Amendment to keep this turkey from the death penalty.
Reinhardt is probably the most commie leftist gun grabbing judge in the 9th Circus and that’s saying a lot.
excerpt from a 2002 two decision:
“Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the 72-page decision as a brief for his assertion in the summary that “the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.”
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-925.html
That's why criminals should incorporate, so that when they commit crimes, the corporation is at fault, and not them.
Oh... they do.
That’s what I thought too!
-PJ
They would have to incorporate for other reasons, as contracts formed for unlawful purposes are null and void.
“In the United States and Canada, the Hells Angels are incorporated as the Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation.”
It would probably be better for common criminals to form a limited liability company. For that they would only have to insure that their taxes were paid, and that under no circumstances did they commingle funds.
What do you know about this one:
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
I suspect this is a stopped clock moment.
He’s a nefarious liberal and I wouldn’t put chicanery past one of his rulings.
I don’t think it really matters. If Obama wins and gets to replace Scalia or Kennedy, or if Romney wins and screws up and gives us a Souter, then the recent pro-Second Amendment decisions from the Sup Court will be overturned.
That the Second Amendment protects an individual right will never be accepted by the left, and their judges can be counted on to gut it any chance they get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.