Today in Supreme Court History: December 2, 1907

12/2/1907: Ex Parte Young argued.

The Fuller Court (1907)

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Stapf, 375 U.S. 118 (decided December 2, 1963): estate not entitled to marital tax deduction where will required widow's share to be transferred to children

United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87 (decided December 2, 1975): 18 U.S.C. §1715, criminalizing mailing of concealed-carry-capable weapons to general public (for example, defendant's 22-inch sawed-off shotgun), was not unconstitutionally vague (so far as I know, this statute survives Heller and McDonald)

United States v. Jose, 519 U.S. 54 (decided December 2, 1996): order enforcing IRS summons but requiring IRS to turn over information five days after receipt was "final order" and therefore appealable

[apedad]

RE: United States v. Powell

18 U.S. Code § 1715 - Firearms as nonmailable; regulations

Pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person are nonmailable and shall not be deposited in or carried by the mails or delivered by any officer or employee of the Postal Service. (It then goes on to list exceptions for govt officials.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1715

Huh...I'm surprised the gun folks haven't gone after this law.

These weapons are (still) legal items.

And they could impose shipping requirements, e.g., hazmat, registered, must be done in person and inspected prior to acceptance, etc.

Although, I guess someone/somehow would have to be able to verify the addressee was legally authorized to receive the package, e.g., not shipped to a felon, etc.

Note, it doesn't cover private carriers, e.g., Fedex (which might be covered under another law - I dunno).

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court has preemptively reassured us that federal firearms laws are substantially unaffected by its rulings. As a court member I would have avoided speculating about whether insane felons had the right to carry machine guns in schools because that was not necessary to the cases at hand.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's odd that no one has tried to attack this statute, which would force the Court (or some judge, somewhere) to rule on it.

For someone physically far from a gun store, or with mobility issues, it would seem to be an undue burden to not be able to mail order.

[bernard11]

Of course they do.

See Bellmore, Brett.

[jdgalt1]

Is Young still good case law? Because it appears on its face to be the miraculous solution to all the cases IJ discusses in its "Bound by Oath" series.