Hemani did not rule out Section 922(g)(3) charges when the government presents additional evidence that a defendant poses a danger to public safety. But prior to Hemani, prosecutors typically did not do that. The question now is how federal courts should deal with such prior convictions: Should they simply be vacated, or should the government get another chance to offer evidence that would meet Hemani’s new requirements? [More]
I’m all for punishing the hell out of people who make the choice to misoperate a firearm, or car, or anything while intoxicated and then threaten and/or harm the innocent. But how stoned do you have to be to believe abridging a fundamental right and imposing a permanent prior restraint because someone MIGHT temporarily do something bad is consistent with Founding intent?
[Via Lane]
