Proof Of Service (Court Of Appeal: Fill & Download for Free

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th District’s ruling is perhaps a prime example of judicial silliness.In its ruling the court said that weapons of war aren’t covered by the Second Amendment.In doing so, they directly contradicted a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said only weapons are war are protected by the Constitution.This is why courts are said to issue opinions and not rulings.In United States v. Miller, the court was asked to determine whether the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) was constitutional. At issue was a sawed-off shotgun possessed by Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two bank robbers from Oklahoma. Since the gun had not been registered as required by the NFA, state police arrested them and charged them with felony possession of an illegal weapon.The defense challenged the law, saying it was not a revenue measure and therefore was an unconstitutional incursion on states rights and a violation of Miller’s and Layton’s Second Amendment rights.Associate Justice James McReynolds wrote the unanimous opinion for the Court. In part, McReynolds wrote: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”The ruling applied only to the shotgun and not any of the other firearms (machine gun, short-barreled rifle, etc.) covered in the NFA.At the time, the “militia” was divided into two components, the organized militia or the National Guard, and the unorganized militia, consisting of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45. This was pursuant to the Militia Act of 1903.In 1939, the National Guard didn’t even have the new semi-automatic Garand Rifle, which was still being distributed to troops in the regular army. The shotguns they did have for certain duties, such as prison guard, had 18-inch barrels. It wasn’t until modern times that shotguns with 14-inch barrels came into use for close-quarters combat.So the court reasoned that if a gun wasn’t of the type in common use among militias, it wasn’t suitable for use by the militias and therefore was not a gun suitable for a citizen to possess in order to provide service to the militia. McReynolds wrote that only those guns suitable for use in military service were protected by the Second Amendment.Gun-control advocates love to hold up the Miller decision as proof that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right to keep and bear arms. They fail to note that McReynolds never said who should possess the guns. In fact, McReynolds cited numerous examples of citizens being required to furnish arms suitable to military service.So contrary to the ruling from a lower court, the Supreme Court has already unequivocally stated that citizens have the right to keep and bear weapons suitable for war.The current standard-issue rifle for troops in the U.S. National Guard is either the M16A2 or M4 carbine. Only M16 rifles registered prior to May 19, 1986 are legal for citizens to own. This means that federal law is making citizens unable to possess weapons suitable to militia service. Moreover, the M4 carbine has only a 14-inch barrel, meaning it is a short-barreled rifle in NFA terms.This means that selective-fire rifles should not only be legal for citizens to possess, their ownership should be encouraged because of their particular suitability to militia service. The same would be true of 9mm pistols, .45 ACP handguns and certain submachine guns like the H&K MP5. By the Supreme Court’s ruling, these are the only guns protected by the Second Amendment.The 4th Circuit case is one of two I am hoping the Supreme Court will accept in its next session, which begins in October. The other is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th District’s recent ruling in the case of Young v. Hawaii that said open carry it protected by the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms.As it’s likely that the Senate will confirm Brent Kavanaugh as the next associate justice, it’s also very likely that the 4th District’s ruling will be reversed and the 9th District’s ruling upheld.So far from being afraid for my guns (especially as I don’t live in one of the states to which the 4th District ruling applies), I am kind of excited to think of Michael Bloomberg, Shannon Watts, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer having a collective meltdown. Heck, I would pay to see that.

I defended an indigent client who needed my representation more than he could have ever imagined. When I first saw that I was appointed to a case where I saw that the charges included Failure to Mow Lawn, Failure to Remove Junk, and Failure to Remove Trailer, I was thinking that these charges were ridiculous as I thought of someone sitting in jail being asked what they are in for and them saying, “I forgot to mow my lawn.” What kind of tomfoolery is this?However, once I saw that these violations carried a penalty of up to one year in jail, I realized that this was a serious situation and began outlining my case. The charge was rubbish to begin with (no pun intended). I researched the case law on my own and found a precedent which had stricken down a noise ordinance in Virginia Beach as unconstitutional under the “void for vagueness” doctrine and the “overbreadth” doctrine. I then contacted the ACLU of Virginia and they gave me some precedents they had on hand for just these sorts of challenges.I had thoroughly prepared for the trial in advance by preparing my witnesses, writing down my questions/arguments, and indexing/organizing the documents I planned on presenting. On the day of the trial the city attorney guided the ordinance officer through her testimony.Once the prosecution rested, I made my Motion to Strike/Motion for Directed Verdict. This is a motion made after the prosecution rests which basically states that the prosecution did not offer any proof on certain elements which are essential to the case and laid out by the statute.Among other things, I argued the ordinance officer did not testify as to:7-day notice given and to whom it was givenmy client not being a licensed junk dealer or establishment engaged in repair, rebuilding, reconditioning or salvaging of equipmentthe land being not greater than one acre in size which is located in an agricultural zoning area and used principally for agricultural or horticultural purposes.The judge denied my motions after hearing both sides. I then presented my case by calling my client to the stand. He was an Iraq War veteran with a service-connected disability. He had just gotten back from the VA when the ordinance officer cited him for these violations. He testified he didn’t remember receiving notice of these alleged violations 7 days prior, that he intended to remove the junk and mow his lawn but had not been feeling well and was taking medication for his back pain.My client was found Not Guilty on the Failure to Mow Lawn charge only because the inspector had never actually measured how high his grass was and thus could not say whether it was over 10 inches per the ordinance. The judge found him guilty on the other charges but noted that the arguments I had made regarding giving inspectors too much discretion leading to discriminatory enforcement were persuasive on some points and he would be curious to see how they played out before the Court of Appeals. He sentenced my client to 30 days in jail which was completely insane in my opinion.I filed a Notice of Appeal immediately, and the sentence was held in abeyance (not imposed) until it could be heard by another court. It was promptly dismissed in Circuit Court. However, this ordinance along with one that criminalizes trick or treating past a certain age are the most absurd laws and ordinances that I have ever seen. I’ve also seen kids being taken to court for name calling.Trick or Treating Ordinance-Municode LibraryFailure to Mow Lawn Ordinance-Municode LibraryWhen I was a kid, if you got into a fight at school then you got a suspension or Saturday School. You didn’t get charged with assault 4th. If you said “You better watch your back” to another student, then the teacher would talk with you, send you to the office, or give you a detention. You didn’t get charged with Terroristic Threatening.These are just some instances of over-criminalization run rampant in our society. We have evolved into a society where school resource officers are getting the judicial system involved when really all that should happen is a detention or proper classroom management. It infuriates me to no end. With every single ignorant law like these that goes into effect, we are further eroding the foundations of freedom upon which this nation was built. Call your local city council or legislator if you find mindless legislation of this sort and see if they will actually do something to repeal it.Hopefully, the voice of reason will prevail and kids can go back to being kids rather than criminals — and veterans will be given the help they deserve. In the meantime, I will continue to fight the good fight and stand up to a criminal justice system that continually over-criminalizes, over-prosecutes, and is becoming increasingly militaristic in its approach.

Lots of great answers which reiterate my view that the countries are roughly the same in being free and open - the US more hard core on freedom of speech, the UK with fewer nitpicky little laws (e.g. no things like jay walking, the controls on firework sales found in many of the US, the rules in one state requiring trains to have “smoke breaks”, or in New Jersey not being allowed to have self service fuel stations) and more sexual freedom for younger people (age of consent 16 in UK, right to access to contraception and abortion at any age without parents being told).There is one big thing though the US has the UK does not have in restricting freedom that no-one has mentioned though - the draft. All males over 18 in the US have to register for a potential draft into the armed forces. The US currently does not automatically call up anyone right now but all the laws letting it do it are there as is the legal requirement for everyone to register. In contrast the UK abolished “National Service”, long before the US did and has no equivalent at all of the draft register, new laws would be needed.Another area of big difference - the US and UK in theory have similar laws on restriction of what the legal “powers that be” can do to you when accused or convicted of crimes (in fact in the US some of those are theoretically constitutionally protected), but in practice the UK enforces them much more strictly. Due process when arrested in the UK is covered by various modern laws at the core of which is the “Police and Criminal Evidence Act” and are they set very strict controls on how the Police and other law enforcement agencies have to treat you. In the US that rests on court rulings and (mostly) common law and varies enormously between jurisdictions (not just the states but in some places between cities and counties too). Then if convicted, the treatment in the US is also much worse - prisons have regimes where inmates are often subject to extreme violence by other inmates with no, or little practical measure requiring the authorities to protect them. Then there is enforcement against “cruel and unusual punishments” which are in theory comparable in law between the two countries, in practice US courts have been much more lenient in allowing people to be treated in ways the UK would consider torture. Another area the US is weak is on is post prosecution review of cases - the UK has the Criminal Cases Review Commission with a right to open cases on new evidence, in the US there is no equivalent and courts have even ruled new proof of innocence is not enough to quash convictions. Finally and related to that is the US use of the death penalty - the UK has completely banned its use in all territories it controls, in the US people regularly are killed by the state often with trials that would not meet the requirements of evidence in the UK, which as well as being of dubious morality completely removes any further right of appeal even if compelling proof of innocence later arises.