Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Order Doc 41 07-Cv-251-Jmh

    Uploaded by

    politicalprisoner2
    Document number 41 from Case Number 5:07-cv-251-JMH from the US District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky is significant for its clear statement that Somerville did not commit a crime of violence. The term “crime of violence” is given a definition by statute at 18 USC 924(c)(3). Proving that possession of a machine gun without a federal permit is not a crime of violence, destroys the foundation of justification used to enact the National Firearms Act. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968, in Haynes v. United States, 390 US 85, the Supreme Court verified the reasons stated by Congress: “Nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, while reporting in 1959 on certain proposed amendments to the Act, stated that the “primary purpose of [the Firearms Act] was to make it more difficult for the gangster element to obtain certain types of weapons. The type of weapons with which these provisions are concerned are the types it was thought would be used primarily by the gangster-type element.”...” By destroying the claim that possessing machine guns inherently involves violent crime, the Federal Courts have eviscerated the Congress' premise that possessing machine guns (without a federal permit) is automatically a criminal activity of the gangster-type element. Somerville has destroyed the basis upon which most firearms prohibitions were justified. The Courts have acknowledged that there is no basis upon which to claim that possessing ANY kind of weapons automatically indicates violent or criminal intent. By continuing the machine gun “ban” effected in 1986, the Congress and Federal Courts perpetuate a prohibition without justification which is in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Winning this case while incarcerated was especially difficult for Somerville. As shown in the ORDER, the Federal Bureau of Prisons staff members told Somerville they could care less about his victory in court and they would proceed with their activity to brand him a violent criminal upon release from prison. Somerville's filing of the noted Motion for Further Relief which requested that the Bureau of Prisons staff be cited and punished for Contempt of the Court's Judgement in the case, resulted in Somerville being placed in the “hole” (the prison dungeon) for unnamed “investigation” for months. Somerville continued to fight that legal battle from that dungeon, forcing the Bureau of Prisons to pay his court costs and to answer to the federal court for their contempt.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Order Doc 41 07-Cv-251-Jmh

    Uploaded by

    politicalprisoner2
    15 views3 pages
    Document number 41 from Case Number 5:07-cv-251-JMH from the US District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky is significant for its clear statement that Somerville did not commit a crime of violence. The term “crime of violence” is given a definition by statute at 18 USC 924(c)(3). Proving that possession of a machine gun without a federal permit is not a crime of violence, destroys the foundation of justification used to enact the National Firearms Act. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968, in Haynes v. United States, 390 US 85, the Supreme Court verified the reasons stated by Congress: “Nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, while reporting in 1959 on certain proposed amendments to the Act, stated that the “primary purpose of [the Firearms Act] was to make it more difficult for the gangster element to obtain certain types of weapons. The type of weapons with which these provisions are concerned are the types it was thought would be used primarily by the gangster-type element.”...” By destroying the claim that possessing machine guns inherently involves violent crime, the Federal Courts have eviscerated the Congress' premise that possessing machine guns (without a federal permit) is automatically a criminal activity of the gangster-type element. Somerville has destroyed the basis upon which most firearms prohibitions were justified. The Courts have acknowledged that there is no basis upon which to claim that possessing ANY kind of weapons automatically indicates violent or criminal intent. By continuing the machine gun “ban” effected in 1986, the Congress and Federal Courts perpetuate a prohibition without justification which is in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Winning this case while incarcerated was especially difficult for Somerville. As shown in the ORDER, the Federal Bureau of Prisons staff members told Somerville they could care less about his victory in court and they would proceed with their activity to brand him a violent criminal upon release from prison. Somerville's filing of the noted Motion for Further Relief which requested that the Bureau of Prisons staff be cited and punished for Contempt of the Court's Judgement in the case, resulted in Somerville being placed in the “hole” (the prison dungeon) for unnamed “investigation” for months. Somerville continued to fight that legal battle from that dungeon, forcing the Bureau of Prisons to pay his court costs and to answer to the federal court for their contempt.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Document number 41 from Case Number 5:07-cv-251-JMH from the US District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky is significant for its clear statement that Somerville did not commit a crime of violence. The term “crime of violence” is given a definition by statute at 18 USC 924(c)(3). Proving that possession of a machine gun without a federal permit is not a crime of violence, destroys the foundation of justification used to enact the National Firearms Act. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968, in Haynes v. United States, 390 US 85, the Supreme Court verified the reasons stated by Congress: “Nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, while reporting in 1959 on certain proposed amendments to the Act, stated that the “primary purpose of [the Firearms Act] was to make it more difficult for the gangster element to obtain certain types of weapons. The type of weapons with which these provisions are concerned are the types it was thought would be used primarily by the gangster-type element.”...” By destroying the claim that possessing machine guns inherently involves violent crime, the Federal Courts have eviscerated the Congress' premise that possessing machine guns (without a federal permit) is automatically a criminal activity of the gangster-type element. Somerville has destroyed the basis upon which most firearms prohibitions were justified. The Courts have acknowledged that there is no basis upon which to claim that possessing ANY kind of weapons automatically indicates violent or criminal intent. By continuing the machine gun “ban” effected in 1986, the Congress and Federal Courts perpetuate a prohibition without justification which is in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Winning this case while incarcerated was especially difficult for Somerville. As shown in the ORDER, the Federal Bureau of Prisons staff members told Somerville they could care less about his victory in court and they would proceed with their activity to brand him a violent criminal upon release from prison. Somerville's filing of the noted Motion for Further Relief which requested that the Bureau of Prisons staff be cited and punished for Contempt of the Court's Judgement in the case, resulted in Somerville being placed in the “hole” (the prison dungeon) for unnamed “investigation” for months. Somerville continued to fight that legal battle from that dungeon, forcing the Bureau of Prisons to pay his court costs and to answer to the federal court for their contempt.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    15 views3 pages

    Order Doc 41 07-Cv-251-Jmh

    Uploaded by

    politicalprisoner2
    Document number 41 from Case Number 5:07-cv-251-JMH from the US District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky is significant for its clear statement that Somerville did not commit a crime of violence. The term “crime of violence” is given a definition by statute at 18 USC 924(c)(3). Proving that possession of a machine gun without a federal permit is not a crime of violence, destroys the foundation of justification used to enact the National Firearms Act. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968, in Haynes v. United States, 390 US 85, the Supreme Court verified the reasons stated by Congress: “Nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, while reporting in 1959 on certain proposed amendments to the Act, stated that the “primary purpose of [the Firearms Act] was to make it more difficult for the gangster element to obtain certain types of weapons. The type of weapons with which these provisions are concerned are the types it was thought would be used primarily by the gangster-type element.”...” By destroying the claim that possessing machine guns inherently involves violent crime, the Federal Courts have eviscerated the Congress' premise that possessing machine guns (without a federal permit) is automatically a criminal activity of the gangster-type element. Somerville has destroyed the basis upon which most firearms prohibitions were justified. The Courts have acknowledged that there is no basis upon which to claim that possessing ANY kind of weapons automatically indicates violent or criminal intent. By continuing the machine gun “ban” effected in 1986, the Congress and Federal Courts perpetuate a prohibition without justification which is in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Winning this case while incarcerated was especially difficult for Somerville. As shown in the ORDER, the Federal Bureau of Prisons staff members told Somerville they could care less about his victory in court and they would proceed with their activity to brand him a violent criminal upon release from prison. Somerville's filing of the noted Motion for Further Relief which requested that the Bureau of Prisons staff be cited and punished for Contempt of the Court's Judgement in the case, resulted in Somerville being placed in the “hole” (the prison dungeon) for unnamed “investigation” for months. Somerville continued to fight that legal battle from that dungeon, forcing the Bureau of Prisons to pay his court costs and to answer to the federal court for their contempt.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    You might also like