https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5410_8nj9.pdf
A better headline would be “doesn’t” rather than “shouldn’t”. Whether the sentence should be lengthened is a matter for the legislative branch when they write the law. Whether the sentence does get lengthened is a matter for the court when they apply the law as passed by the legislature.
Read Thomas’ actual and separate opinion (unlike Gorsuch, he did not “concur” with Kagan, as had his own reasoning). (his comments begin on page 27 of the link you provided).
3 time loser
Aggravated Assault history
FELON illegally in possession of a firearm.
Sorry folks, if The Left wants tougher gun laws, this here is the case for them.
In some Gulags across Amerikkka, simply TOUCHING a handgun without a license can get you cheese sandwiches and Off-label Kool Aid (Bug Juice as we called it) for a year.
Reading through Thomas’ concurrence, it would appear that this case was at least marginally decided correctly, based on the plain reading of the law itself, and previous precedent.
The result of this decision could be easily reversed by cleaning up the language in the law to made it more precise. I got the distinct impression from his comments that Thomas did not LIKE having to go along with it, but did, because that was what was required.
If you can’t give a felon his gun back when he gets out, then he shouldn’t ever get out.
Is an "enhanced penalty" for a prior crime which one already served a punishment considered double jeopardy?
If the punishment for the current conviction has extra penalty added for the prior crime, isn't the person being punished a second time for that prior crime?
-PJ
You commit your crime you do your time you get out. In my America you should be free to own weapons for protection as guaranteed to all America.
If however you use those newly owned weapons to commit a crime then that’s different.