Illegal to own a bullet proof vest
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_ ... roof_vests
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a challenge against a federal law making it illegal for criminals to own bulletproof vests. The appeal had questioned Congress' lawmaking ability under the Commerce Clause.
The high court refused to hear arguments from Cedrick B. Alderman, who was convicted under a federal law making it illegal for convicted criminals to own body armor that has been sold across state lines.
Congress passed that law in 2002, citing its authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce.
Alderman was convicted of armed robbery in 1999. Police caught him with a bulletproof vest in 2005, and he was sentenced to prison for 18 months.
Alderman challenged the law, saying it exceeded Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the conviction and sentence.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Alderman's appeal.
Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said they would have heard the case.
Not hearing the case "threatens the proper limits on Congress' commerce power and may allow Congress to exercise police powers that our Constitution reserves to the states," Thomas said.
The case is Alderman v. United States, 09-1555.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a challenge against a federal law making it illegal for criminals to own bulletproof vests. The appeal had questioned Congress' lawmaking ability under the Commerce Clause.
The high court refused to hear arguments from Cedrick B. Alderman, who was convicted under a federal law making it illegal for convicted criminals to own body armor that has been sold across state lines.
Congress passed that law in 2002, citing its authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce.
Alderman was convicted of armed robbery in 1999. Police caught him with a bulletproof vest in 2005, and he was sentenced to prison for 18 months.
Alderman challenged the law, saying it exceeded Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the conviction and sentence.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Alderman's appeal.
Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said they would have heard the case.
Not hearing the case "threatens the proper limits on Congress' commerce power and may allow Congress to exercise police powers that our Constitution reserves to the states," Thomas said.
The case is Alderman v. United States, 09-1555.
81 is now off the air
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I wonder if a convicted criminal woul base his/her decision to re-offend on whether or not they could use body armor when committing a crime.
Do crimimals try and predict the probability of getting killed when deciding whether or not to committ a crime?
Interesting case!
Godfather.
maybe from a cops gun while he robs a bank or a liquor store ?
Godfather.
they can, if they haven't been convicted of a crime.
It harms others in the sense that it may give a criminal more protection while committing a crime.
They could grant special permits for those who really need protection, just like they do for concealed weapons.
That's my arguement why non-military/non-police should not have body armour.
Hail, Hail!!!
I vividly remember that day.......seemed surreal!
I always wondered why a head shot wasn't taken right away. but yes i would agree with you
at least not with out a special permit,
Godfather.
Because, it is extremely difficult to make a head shot with a 9mm pistol when there is an incoming barrage of automatic gunfire. Some of the loads were armor piercing rounds that passed through the engine blocks of LAPD cruisers. SWAT did not arrive on-scene until 20 minutes into the firefight... and SWAT eventually took out the second gunman.
Hail, Hail!!!