Posted on Aug 28, 2023
Billings Man Accused of Illegal Possession of Firearm in School Zone | Bureau of Alcohol,...
422
8
4
5
5
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
MAJ Byron Oyler
Most places sidewalks are a gray area, some hold you accountable to keep clean such as no snow in the winter yet nail you as this guy as it not being your property. We probably need to find a way to codify it legally.
(0)
(0)
This is an odd case.
The law is almost certainly unconstitutional (it has been ruled unconstitutional in court twice, and each time it was changed very slightly and passed by congress again). Challenging an unconstitutional law isn't what makes this case unusual -- especially not now in the aftermath of the Bruen decision which eliminated the "balancing" test for 2A infringements.
One difficulty in 2A cases frequently is the question of "standing" -- for someone to sue the government they need to have "standing" -- which means they have to show that they have experienced or are experiencing harm from the government action. Some trial courts view "harm" very broadly other trial courts take a very narrow view of what harm grants standing. Specifically many courts find that just because a law says you can't do something, you have not been harmed unless you have been charged under the law. A few courts will accept standing if you can show that what the law prohibits is something you need to do or had previously been doing, but trial courts generally want to avoid such cases.
This is why several of the current 2A cases have plaintiffs who are not very likeable people and who probably do belong in jail even if their 2A claim is valid. It can be hard to find a likeable and completely innocent person who is willing to violate a law, be arrested, and jailed just so they have standing to challenge the law.
Meet Gabriel Cowan Metcalf.
Metcalf apparently decided he wanted to challenge the Gun Free Schools Act and was not just willing but actually eager to get arrested and jailed just so he could challenge the unconstitutional law.
The law is almost certainly unconstitutional (it has been ruled unconstitutional in court twice, and each time it was changed very slightly and passed by congress again). Challenging an unconstitutional law isn't what makes this case unusual -- especially not now in the aftermath of the Bruen decision which eliminated the "balancing" test for 2A infringements.
One difficulty in 2A cases frequently is the question of "standing" -- for someone to sue the government they need to have "standing" -- which means they have to show that they have experienced or are experiencing harm from the government action. Some trial courts view "harm" very broadly other trial courts take a very narrow view of what harm grants standing. Specifically many courts find that just because a law says you can't do something, you have not been harmed unless you have been charged under the law. A few courts will accept standing if you can show that what the law prohibits is something you need to do or had previously been doing, but trial courts generally want to avoid such cases.
This is why several of the current 2A cases have plaintiffs who are not very likeable people and who probably do belong in jail even if their 2A claim is valid. It can be hard to find a likeable and completely innocent person who is willing to violate a law, be arrested, and jailed just so they have standing to challenge the law.
Meet Gabriel Cowan Metcalf.
Metcalf apparently decided he wanted to challenge the Gun Free Schools Act and was not just willing but actually eager to get arrested and jailed just so he could challenge the unconstitutional law.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next