US v Emerson: Petition for Cert in the US SC DENIED

The Supreme Court of the United States ^ | 10 June 2002 | court staff

[45Auto]

Status: DECIDED

Timothy Joe Emerson, Petitioner v. United States Docketed:

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit March 5, 2002 (99-10331)

~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Feb 28 2002 Petition for writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 6, 2002)

Mar 28 2002 Order extending time to file response to petition until May 6, 2002.

May 6 2002 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.

ay 22 2002 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 6, 2002

Jun 10 2002 Petition DENIED.

[45Auto]

Not much fanfare for the denial of cert. for this case.

[mdittmar]

So he can keep his gun or not?

Obviously, I'm no lawyer.

[capt. norm]

Thanks for all the details as to what this is all about.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Atlas Sneezed]

Details here and elswhere upon searching "Emerson"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/652206/posts

[L,TOWM]

OK. I knew the background of the case.

I'm still unclear, though...will SCOTUS hear the case or not?

[Keith in Iowa]

will SCOTUS hear the case or not?

Denial means not in this instance...

[El Gato]

No, he cannot keep his gun, not yet anyway. With the Supreme Court denying "cert", the decision of the Fifth Circuit stands. The Fifth Circuit declared the RKBA an individual one, but ruled that the law in question, in this particular case, did not undully "infringe" upon that right. (BS I say, but that's what the 5th Cirucuit said). The Fifth Circuit Court reversed the trial Judge and remanded the Emerson case back to federal district court for retrial. So he'll have to stand trial. The Jury could find him innocent, as one did concerning related state charges. More likely they'll find him technically guilty, and he'll not only lose his RKBA forever, he'll probalby go to jail.

[mdittmar]

The Jury could find him innocent, as one did concerning related state charges.

So I assume he has no felony conviction to deny him the right to own a gun,are they basing this on a State domestic violence law?

[RogueIsland]

So I assume he has no felony conviction to deny him the right to own a gun,are they basing this on a State domestic violence law?

Yup.

[RogueIsland]

Actually, it might be federal. I need to look that up.

[mdittmar]

There trying to get by hook or crook.

Stay single,stay armed;)

[zeugma]

I must say that I'm not suprised at all. The supreme court has hidden from the plain and simple meaning and history of the 2nd amendment for most of this century. What a bunch of losers.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

.

[packrat01]

"Single" is no insurance against domestic violence restraining orders...

[45Auto]

here' a link for the brief filed by Solicitor General Olson asking the US SC to DENY cert. DOJ Emerson Brief

[45Auto]

see my post #16

[mdittmar]

"Single" is no insurance against domestic violence restraining orders...Allow me to qualify my statement.

Don't get involved in a relationship,one nighter,date,work related function,etc;)

[packrat01]

... and don't get dust in one eye. It looks like you're winking...