A conviction under the old national park gun ban upheld by 4th Circuit
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: A conviction under the old national park gun ban upheld by 4th Circuit

  1. #1

    A conviction under the old national park gun ban upheld by 4th Circuit

    Fourth Circuit Upholds Old National Park Gun Ban

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th circuit has upheld a conviction of a person found in a National Park with a handgun. The person was sleeping in his car and had an expired Virgina concealed carry permit.

    The court held that laws and regulations impacting on firearms ownership and possession should be reviewed under either a struct scrutiny standard or an “intermediate scrutiny” standard, depending on whether the incident under review involves the core fundamental right to posses a firearm for self-defense in the home, the less protected right to posses a firearm for self-defense out side the home.
    The full opinion can be read here: U.S. v. Masciandaro, No. 09-4839 (4th Cir CA, March 24, 2011)

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Key words Expired License.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare45 View Post
    Key words Expired License.
    ???

    If his CC had not been expired, do you think the court would held that strict scrutiny standard applies, and that the regulation would fail that standard?

    I don't get that impression from the opinion.

    He wasn't prosecuted for an illegal weapon. He was only cited with a violation of the regulation prohibiting possession of a weapon in a national park.

  5. #4
    The first paragraph states he was arrested before the law was changed but tried after. I'm not a lawyer but I would think the date of his arrest would be the problem.When he was arrested a CWP expired or not was worthless in a National Park. Right or wrong that was the law at that time.
    [

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by R&M View Post
    The first paragraph states he was arrested before the law was changed but tried after. I'm not a lawyer but I would think the date of his arrest would be the problem.When he was arrested a CWP expired or not was worthless in a National Park. Right or wrong that was the law at that time.
    Correct, but he challenged the law as a violation of the 2nd amendment, both facially and as applied to himself.

    The importance of the case is the court's "sliding standard of review." Instead of picking either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny as the standard of review, the court adopted a situational standard of review, a lot like that suggested by Eugene Volokh, whose law review article on the subject the court cited several times.

  7. #6
    Like I said "I'm not a lawyer".
    [

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by R&M View Post
    The first paragraph states he was arrested before the law was changed but tried after. I'm not a lawyer but I would think the date of his arrest would be the problem.When he was arrested a CWP expired or not was worthless in a National Park. Right or wrong that was the law at that time.

    If I understand correctly you are right. You are tried by the law as it exists at the time of your arrest
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    If I understand correctly you are right. You are tried by the law as it exists at the time of your arrest
    Just like you can't be tried for an ex post facto law. But if you get lucky, you might get away with the after the fact law change.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast