listen here

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Gun Owners of America (GOA) Victory in the U.S. Supreme Court

Gun Owners of America (GOA) Victory in the U.S. Supreme CourtAmmoland

Washington, DC -(Ammoland.com)- The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday decided Henderson v. United States — a case where Gun Owners of America and its foundation have been very active.

The Court’s unanimous (9-0) ruling further protects Second Amendment rights and erects a higher barrier against the confiscation of firearms. The case involved Tony Henderson, a former Border Patrol agent with a previous pot conviction. Because of his felony, the government tried to take his firearms collection, which totaled more than $3,500.  

“In protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment secures a right of private property in those arms that are protected by the Amendment.” — GOA brief in Henderson v. United States, (p. 19)

Gun Owners of America went to bat for Mr. Henderson and argued he should be able to sell his guns, which at the time, were in the FBI’s possession.

After Henderson had been convicted on an unrelated marijuana conviction, he sold his ownership rights in the firearms to an unrelated third party who was legally eligible to possess the firearms. The third party asked the FBI to turn the guns over to the purchaser, but the FBI refused.

The government used a theory of “constructive possession” to claim that Mr. Henderson’s firearms could not be transferred, even to a third party, without violating the felon-in-possession ban. The trial court and the court of appeals agreed with this legal fiction, preventing Mr. Henderson from selling his firearms to the unrelated third party.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided in favor of Tony Henderson. The high Court held that the government’s “constructive possession” theory was unsustainable and inconsistent with the purpose of the statute, which is a position consistent with our amicus brief.

Our amicus brief (Section II) also argued that the government did not have a superior property interest in Mr. Henderson’s firearms. This is why, GOA said, the government could not use a forfeiture proceeding to take all of Mr. Henderson’s firearms.

As a “right protecting against both public and private violence,” GOA argued in its brief, it is an “essential principle” that the Second Amendment protect the right of private property in firearms — otherwise, tyrants would be free to “simply tak[e] away the people’s arms” on the basis of any pretext. (p. 20-21)

The court’s decision is a victory for private property rights, and helps to further erect a barrier against the confiscation of firearms.

The only constraint the Court imposed in this case was that a felon could not sell his collection to someone who later would allow him to control the firearms.

About Gun Owners of America (GOA)

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/05/gun-owners-of-america-goa-victory-in-the-u-s-supreme-court/#ixzz3asxKPECT
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
3838

3 Responses to Gun Owners of America (GOA) Victory in the U.S. Supreme Court

  1. # 1 NWO Hatr says:

    “The court’s decision is a victory for private property rights, and helps to further erect a barrier against the confiscation of firearms.”

    First, there is no such thing as ‘private property’, unless you own an allodial title.

    Secondly, there’s already massive barrier of illegal gun ‘laws’ in place, so I don’t see this as much of a ‘victory’.

    Dead commies & NO gun laws (other than pertaining to criminals) will be the victory.

  2. Bill Jarett says:

    “The only constraint the Court imposed in this case was that a felon could not sell his collection to someone who later would allow him to control the firearms.”-

    Ludicrous unconstitutional prior restraint on individual rights. Because someone in the future might chose to violate the “law”, their rights are permanently abrogated? So if your spouse commits a felony, you have no right to own a firearm. What if a police officer’s son commits a felony, does the officer no longer have a Constitutional right to own firearms because the police officer might chose to brake the “law” and let his son have access to them?

    • Alf the Obstinate says:

      So right. Equal access under the law…GOOD point! What is good for the goose, IS good for the gander…Busted for POT? Big bad, horrible felony! I’m so glad that this made it to court in the first place.
      It shows us what a sham “criminal” law has turned into…Recycle the
      DOJ, and use the manure to build a new temple for some SKULL &
      BONERS…

Leave a Reply