No. 19-6517
Tags: 18-usc-922g 2nd-amendment bond-v-united-states commerce-clause criminal-law due-process federal-statute firearm firearm-possession interstate-commerce mens-rea nfib-v-sebelius rehaif-v-united-states statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g) authorizes conviction upon proof that a firearm once crossed state lines at an unspecified prior occasion, when there is no evidence that the defendants' conduct caused such movement, nor that it moved in the recent past?
II. Whether this conviction, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is consistent with Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g) authorizes conviction upon proof that a firearm once crossed state lines at an unspecified prior occasion, when there is no evidence that the defendants' conduct caused such movement, nor that it moved in the recent past?
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-06
Memorandum of respondent United States of America filed.
2019-11-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 6, 2020.
2019-11-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 6, 2019 to January 6, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-11-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 6, 2019)
Attorneys
Lynden Brown
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent