USSC Ruling on Gun "USE"

[USAFNoDAk]

http://www.startribune.com/nation/12304971.html

Justices rule in favor of defendant on gun issue
Associated Press

Last update: December 10, 2007 - 9:38 AM



The Supreme Court unanimously refused on Monday to broaden the impact of a law that adds extra prison time to the sentences of drug traffickers who use a gun in carrying out their crimes.

In a 9-0 decision, the court said the tough anti-crime provision does not apply to traffickers who trade drugs for guns.

The court overturned the gun-related conviction of Michael A. Watson of Ascension Parish, La., who told a man who turned out to be a government informant that Watson wanted a weapon for self-protection and was willing to trade illegal drugs for it.

The issue in the case was whether receiving a gun in exchange for drugs constitutes "use" of the gun under federal law.

The federal government "may say that a person 'uses' a firearm simply by receiving it in a barter transaction, but no one else would," wrote Justice David Souter. "Given ordinary meaning and the conventions of English, we hold that a person does not 'use' a firearm" under federal law "when he receives it in trade for drugs."

The informant introduced Watson to an undercover government agent who supplied Watson with an unloaded pistol in exchange for the prescription painkiller OxyContin. The drug has been blamed for hundreds of deaths across the country.

Watson was charged with use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. The federal law carries a mandatory prison term of at least five years in prison added on to whatever sentence is handed out for a drug trafficking offense.

A federal judge sentenced Watson, who is 56 and legally blind, to more than 21 years in prison.

The case is Watson v. U.S., 06-571.

If they are so narrowly defining the word "USE", I wonder what their take is on the meaning of the words "KEEP" and "BEAR" when it comes to firearms. This is just amazing, in my opinion. It's like a good/bad decision. The good part is that the USSC seems to be taking a much more libertarian stand on firearms with a HUGE case looming before them next year. The bad part is that crooks (drug traffickers) seem to be getting more protection than law abiding citizens when it comes to gun rights.

 

[Dave in PA]

I don't know if they are necesarily narrowly defining the term 'use' in the above example. It almost seems to me that they are applying the 'common sense' test to it. Most people would define using a tool as actively using it for a purpose, in this case, it seems like the defendant used a firearm as a trade good.

I agree that a drug dealer shouldn't get off, BUT if they had drug trafficing charges that were any good, the DA wouldn't have needed to stretch for a firearms charge.

Who was it that said "It's better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man be jailed"?

 

[mekender]

yeah, for it to come to a 9-0 decision, there was something very specific that was being ruled on... perhaps the law needs to be re-written to include possession and/or use... instead of just use.

 

[Eightball]

Or maybe, they're saying you aren't "using" the gun if it's an item of commerce.

Could be an interesting precedent, indeed, possibly affecting the "commerce" clause?

 

[Jim K]

Interesting, if quite narrow. Many states have laws making it a separate crime to "use a gun in commission of a crime", and some courts have read that as any kind of possession, even if only remotely connected with the crime. This decision may force courts to adhere to the common meaning of the language, not invent new concepts.

Jim

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If they are so narrowly defining the word "USE", I wonder what their take is on the meaning of the words "KEEP" and "BEAR" when it comes to firearms. This is just amazing, in my opinion. It's like a good/bad decision. The good part is that the USSC seems to be taking a much more libertarian stand on firearms with a HUGE case looming before them next year. The bad part is that crooks (drug traffickers) seem to be getting more protection than law abiding citizens when it comes to gun rights.

This is a perfectly reasonable and (IMHO) correct decision. The guy's "crime" was selling drugs. He didn't "use" the gun in the transaction. To me it seems perfectly logical that the aim of a law imposing an extra sentence for "using" a gun in a crime is to punish those who "use" a gun in the commission of a felony.

For example, robber A walks into a bank, hands the teller a note saying "This is a stick-up, fill the bag with money," takes the money and boogeys. No gun. Sentence reflects the usual punishment for robbing a bank.

Robber B walks into a bank, sticks a pistol in the teller's face, says "Fill the bag with money," takes the money and boogeys. Same crime -- bank robbery. Same sentence for the bank robbery. But tack on a bonus for "using" a gun to commit the crime.

In the case the Supremes just ruled on, the guy didn't "use" a gun, he bought one illegally. If you want to make that "using" a gun to commit a crime, then any time one of us carries a gun somewhere we're not allowed to, we should not only be charged with carrying where we're not supposed to, we should also be charged with using a gun to commit a crime.

Sorry, I'm not going there. This was a righteous decision IMHO.

 

[Wes Janson]

The informant introduced Watson to an undercover government agent who supplied Watson with an unloaded pistol in exchange for the prescription painkiller OxyContin. The drug has been blamed for hundreds of deaths across the country.

A federal judge sentenced Watson, who is 56 and legally blind, to more than 21 years in prison.

Right, those evil hardcore gangsta drug dealers looking to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction for their own nefarious purposes.

This definitely gives hope that their upcoming ruling will be favorable.

 

[rdhood]

When I go to Home Depot and buy a hammer, I haven't used it.
When I go to Kroger and buy a muffin pan, I haven't used it.
When I go to Performance and buy a bicycle pump, I haven't used it.

When take them out to the parking lot and immediately decide that I don't really need them, I walk back in and return any of these items and the person asks what was wrong, I am not lying when I say "They are brand new, I haven't used them."

This is not a narrow decision. This is an obvious and common-sense use of the term "use".

 

[geekWithA.45]

This is not a narrow decision. This is an obvious and common-sense use of the term "use".

Indeed.


And it's refreshing to see such a common-sense approach coming from the judiciary. The trend in the past decades has been to interpret circumstances like that in the most statist and punitive manner possible.

 

[ArmedBear]

Why are we throwing people in jail for using, trading, or doing anything else with Oxycontin?!? This is a commercially-manufactured drug.

"Blamed for hundreds of deaths?" That puts it right up there with... TYLENOL! http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11017.php

450 deaths a year, and a lot more people seriously messed up. That makes tylenol "worse", really, since people who don't actually die from Oxycontin seem to turn out okay. It seems that laws about drugs have nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with moralism about getting "high."

That said, the ruling is a good one, in a limited way. But this "drug war" must stop.

 

[Oohrah]

Unfortunately the gun use in a commission of a felony is first to
be dropped during any plea bargain. If it was used as it should,
most likely the bad guy would consider leaving it home rather than
have another 10 years tacked on. But then if they were smart,
getting a job might be better than spending life locked up

 

[doc2rn]

Why where the agents handing over guns?

There seems to be an inherent case of intrapment when the only item that the DA can trade to a dealer for pharmaceuticals is a weapon. With a 9-0 backing from the Supreme Court that DA would be hearing from my legal representative.

 

[69Chevy]

I guess the ruling was good, but the dude still got 21 years for hurting no one, nor attempting to hurt anyone. I think the government is getting way out of hand with these unconstitutional "laws".

Seriously, rapists and child molesters get lighter sentences. They should let people like this go to make room for the people who really need to be behind bars.

 

[ArmedBear]

There seems to be an inherent case of intrapment when the only item that the DA can trade to a dealer for pharmaceuticals is a weapon.

Agreed. If they wanted to catch him dealing, they could have handed him a wad of cash. Seems like they wanted to exploit the letter of the law to get a longer sentence.

I guess the ruling was good, but the dude still got 21 years for hurting no one, nor attempting to hurt anyone.

Exactly.

 

[Beatnik]

Add me to the list of people who are wondering why nobody else is seeing the part of this story that the feds aren't telling us....

...How about backing up 70 years or so and explaining again what business the federal government has banning drugs without a constitutional amendment in the first place?

How about thinking about how this guy who has prescription drugs is so desperate for personal protection that he's probably voluntarily spending some time in serious pain in order to get it?

I'm real happy that so many people see the word DRUGS and immediately stop thinking.

 

[Beatnik]

Ok - sorry, the guy was no good.

On the matter of price, the informant quoted no dollarfigure but suggested that Watson could pay in narcotics. Next, Watson met with the informant and an undercover law enforcement agent posing as a firearms dealer, to whom he gave 24 doses of oxycodone hydrocholoride (commonly, OxyContin) for a .50 caliber semiautomatic pistol. When law enforcement officers arrested Watson, they found the pistol in his car, and a later search of his house turned up a cache of prescription medicines, guns, and ammunition. Watson said he got the pistol “to protect his other firearms and drugs.”

Looks like the guy was no good..... what he wanted a .50 for, I can't imagine.... though the fact that the agent suggested it seems like entrapment to me....

 

[ArmedBear]

Someone finally found something they could do with a DE .50?

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Dave in PA wrote:
I don't know if they are necesarily narrowly defining the term 'use' in the above example. It almost seems to me that they are applying the 'common sense' test to it. Most people would define using a tool as actively using it for a purpose, in this case, it seems like the defendant used a firearm as a trade good.

I agree that a drug dealer shouldn't get off, BUT if they had drug trafficing charges that were any good, the DA wouldn't have needed to stretch for a firearms charge.

Who was it that said "It's better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man be jailed"?

Maybe they were more accurately, rather than narrowly, defining the term "use". I think that is a good thing. When they rule 9-0 against the federal government when it comes to gun rights, I tend to like that decision. What I'm hoping is that the USSC takes the same accurate view of the words "to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment when they decide on the case of Heller vs. Washington, D.C.

I agree that the drug trafficker was not "using" the firearm in this case, and the Feds were trying to expand their powers again, regardless of the law or the constitution. The USSC slapped their pee-pees. Still, this had to be done with a drug trafficker. Why this seldom happens to law abiding citizens is what seems to be unfair. Of course, we have a pretty decent case in Heller, because those were law abiding citizens who asked for a redress of grievances against the city of Washington, D.C. This later case where the USSC whacks the Feds up side the head for broadening, too far, the meaning of the word "use", could be somewhat of a prediction that the Heller case might come out OK, as well.

 

[69Chevy]

Looks like the guy was no good..... what he wanted a .50 for, I can't imagine....

Ok... does this sound bad to anyone else? The guy sold drugs, you may not like that, but as long as he isn't forcing them on anyone, no beef here. I'm sure as a fellow gun owner you can see the logic in not being allowed to ban something just because it can be hazardous if used improperly (or at all, but thats up to the user). The most likely scenario is that gun sits unused in the dude's home, just like most of our collections.