US Supreme Court agrees to hear illegal immigrant's appeal of gun charge

[Aim1]

I hate how SCOTUS chooses gun cases that effect such a minute segment of the population rather than nationwide effective cases such as AWBs and carry outside the home.


https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...-hear-illegal-immigrants-appeal-of-gun-charge

Supreme Court agrees to hear illegal immigrant's appeal of gun charge

BY LYDIA WHEELER - 01/11/19 03:30 PM EST

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal from an immigrant in the country illegally who was convicted of unlawfully possessing a gun.

Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif, a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, has asked the justices to decide if the government must prove both that he knowingly possessed a firearm and ammunition, and knew that he was unlawfully in the United States.

 

[AlexanderA]

This may indicate a willingness of some on the Court to start hearing gun cases. Maybe this is a good sign.

 

[Aim1]

This may indicate a willingness of some on the Court to start hearing gun cases. Maybe this is a good sign.

Not sure about that. They have already recently heard a few gun casss I believe, similar to this one that effecf only 1 person.

Maybe they feel better about taking cases that won’t effect the majority of the general public.

 

[mnrivrat]

I know of a case where a person a number of years ago had a felony charge. Caught his wife in bed with another man and beat the crap out of him. There was a plea bargain in which after five years his felony assault charge was to be dropped to a misdemeanor. He was working in his garage one day and a person he knew asked whether he could store some guns in the garage because he was having issues with his girl friend and didn't want them in his house at the time.
He agreed to let him put them up on a shelf. The person which he knew got in trouble with the law and through his girl friend told the police where she had found out the guns were. So the police raided the house and garage finding the guns. Now he is charged with a felon possessing a firearm. His felony charges from the past were suppose to have been dropped to misdemeanors but for whatever reason they had left the felony stand for gun position without notifying him, They law enforcement could not find the reason they did this and it violated the plea agreement , but yet he still got charged as a felon in position of a firearm. He had no way of knowing he was still carrying a felony charge and was not notified as such.

Court appointed lawyer doesn't seem to give a crap about the details of that charge. She is Just trying to plea bargain it to a non prison sentence. Guy lost his job over being charged, which is a felony.

 

[MEHavey]

Interesting case going in/coming out of this. The [former] student was
not your classic in-your-face-whad'ya-gonna-do-about it illegal.

The case has to be/should be all about if/when he was told he visa
was cancelled.

 

[pdsmith505]

This may indicate a willingness of some on the Court to start hearing gun cases. Maybe this is a good sign.

This isn't really a gun case, it just happens to involve a gun. No 2nd amendment argument is presented. Rehaif doesn't claim that he has a right to possess firearms... his claims center around the bold word below and the accomanying jury instructions:

Section 922(g)(5) of Title 18 provides, in relevant part: It shall be unlawful for any person . . . who, being an alien . . . is illegally or unlawfully in the United States . . . to . . . possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.

Section 924(a)(2) of Title 18 provides: Whoever knowingly violates subsection . . . (g) . . . of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10

For you to find the Defendant guilty, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
• the Defendant knowingly possessed a firearm (Count One) and/or ammunition (Count Two) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; and
• before possessing the firearm and/or ammunition, the Defendant was an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
4 Doc. 69 at 11.

The court further instructed: “The United States is not required to prove that the Defendant knew that he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States.

It seems as though the 11th circuit found that he knew he violated the law because he knew that he had a gun, regardless of whether he knew he was illegally in the US.

Rehaif claims that he couldn't have knowingly violated 922(g) because he didn't know he was in the country illegally when he possessed a firearm.

I'm interested in the fact that this case directly involves Justice Gorsuch through his involvement in United States v. Games-Perez...

 

[Zerodefect]

What would happen to me if I did this in the UAE?

Nice that illegal immigrants have more rights here than I do. Would my case make it to the supreme court? Since when is ignorance, innocence?

 

[John_R]

“...prove both that he knowingly possessed a firearm and ammunition, and knew that he was unlawfully in the United States.”

Wait, what???

 

[MEHavey]

“...prove both that he knowingly possessed a firearm and ammunition, and knew that he was unlawfully in the United States.”
Wait, what???

Read the article.
He has a plausible case that he had no idea his visa was revoked

 

[paulsj]

What would happen to me if I did this in the UAE?

Nice that illegal immigrants have more rights here than I do. Would my case make it to the supreme court? Since when is ignorance, innocence?

The smart thing to do would be to start deportation proceeding against him instead of giving him 18 month sentence for temporary posession of gun and ammo at the range.

 

[herrwalther]

The case has to be/should be all about if/when he was told he visa
was cancelled.

Visas come with stipulations. In legal terms it is we grant you this temporary stay in the country, as long as you are a student. As soon as he was no longer registered, his Visa is invalid. The government is not required to tell adults when the welcome mat is not longer there.

The smart thing to do would be to start deportation proceeding against him instead of giving him 18 month sentence for temporary posession of gun and ammo at the range.

When an illegal is arrested, the first thing that is determined is their legal residency status. Documentation that says yes this person can be in the US. Sometimes this can be determined by local or state police. Every state has ICE agents who deal with thousands of cases a year. ICE makes the determination if the inmate is a candidate for deportation OR serve out an incarceration sentence. The criteria for how they determine this is personally unknown to me.

One particular immigrant I processed was DUI in a stolen vehicle. He was drunk and had ice and heroin in his possession and blood. It was my opinion that he would have been a great candidate for deportation. He was not. But another inmate I dealt with was arrested for having a single crack pipe. He was deported.

 

[CapnMac]

rather than nationwide effective cases such as AWBs and carry outside the home.

The problem with that is that, to do so requires that people wind up in contestable lower court charges relating to those issues.

If memory serves, there were some cases over AWB issues in NJ and/or MD, but none of those got beyond the State appeals court stage. Although, now that I think of that, maybe one MD AWB case reached a Cricuit Cort, but went no further.

It's easy to forget that Heller was a real person, Anthony Heller, who was found guilty of violating the DC handgun laws. That verdict was challenged in 2003 as a class action suit. The dismissal of that suit processed up through the court system to finally reach SCOTUS in 2008.

So, without a specific victim, or class of victims (and willing attorneys) you don't really have a starting point. All of the parties need to be able to have the long-term patience for all these wheels to turn, too.