Federal public defender Kendra Hutchinson braved an uphill climb on December 12, presenting a despondent Second Amendment challenge before a panel consisting of U.S. Second Circuit Judges and Biden appointees Beth Robinson, Myrna Perez and Allison Nathan. Needless to say, any argument based on Americans’ gun rights is bound to fall on deaf ears in this kangaroo court of bad actors, but I digress.
Hutchinson’s client, Steven Perez, is currently serving a 16-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release for receiving a firearm from an unlicensed South Carolina dealer. Perez purchased the gun in 2020, and federal prosecutors say that delivery of that firearm to him in New York City violates a provision of U.S. law prohibiting out-of-state transfers other than through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). Those federal regulations presiding over interstate firearm transportation and used to convict Perez are the basis for which he claims his Constitutional right to bear arms has been violated.
“The statute at issue in this case regulates and imposes burdens on an individual’s acquisition of firearms…This critical right to acquire firearms is core to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Hutchinson argued in support of Perez’s request to vacate his conviction.
Hutchinson cited the landmark 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which requires the government to demonstrate historical tradition in justifying any proposed firearm regulation.
“The historical precedent that the government brings up, it all concerns sale. It all concerns a person’s disposition of a firearm, in this case, to the undesirables of the time, Native Americans. None of the regulations that the government brings up prohibit someone from acquiring,” said Hutchinson, adding that since Perez purchased the gun legally in South Carolina, historical precedent does not exist that suggests transportation of the firearm across state lines be against the law.
“The statute doesn’t say your client can’t receive or import…It just says if your client is going to do that, here’s the mechanism through which it happens — through a federally licensed dealer,” according to U.S. Circuit Judge Beth Robinson, thinking she aptly challenged that notion but not realizing she may have pointed out the pedantic nature of the regulation itself, which has placed a man in prison and has no foundation in the Second Amendment.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Lucas Issacharoff, representing the government, was quick to parrot the argument, citing U.S. Code § 922 A3, prohibiting the transfer or receipt of out-of-state firearms unless conducted through licensed dealers.
“It does nothing to restrict the ability to obtain arms from within the state and even out of state,” Issacharoff said.
The measure, however, creates a burden backed by criminal penalties if violated, argued Hutchinson. The position apparently causes discomfort for anti-Second Amendment leftists as the case has prompted 22 state attorneys general, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, to file an amicus brief in Perez’s appeal. This clown troop seeks to dissuade the Second Circuit from what they say would undermine federal regulations overseeing interstate firearm transportation.
“States and the federal government should be allowed to enforce basic regulations about who can buy and sell guns to ensure they don’t end up in the wrong hands and to protect our communities… We know that these common-sense laws work and have prevented people from illegally obtaining firearms that could pose a significant threat to others,” according to James.
Three blind mice, or three stooges, depending on how you see it, did not issue an immediate ruling. Considering it’s the Second Circuit, however, I’d expect Perez to get just about as fair of a trial as President Trump received in New York.
It doesn’t take much effort to read the utter contempt from Letitia James as she insults Americans’ intelligence with terms like “allowed to enforce,” “basic regulations,” and “common-sense laws” while pretending this doesn’t mean infringing upon that which the Constitution expressly prohibits. All leftists who seek to disarm Americans do this, and the judges who buy it are either too dumb to see the scam or are complicit in violating their oath of office. I tend to believe it is the latter.
Read the full article here
