U.S. v. Emerson

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. E.D.Tex.: SW for gun was clearly without PC and no reasonable officer could rely on it; court considers Second Amendment implications in denying govt GFE

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallMay 19, 2016

    This Circuit has clearly held that the Second Amendment “‘protects the right of individuals … to privately possess and bear their own firearms.'” Dickerson v. City of Denton, 298 F. Supp. 2d 537, 540 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (quoting United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 260 (5th Cir. 2001)). While the right to bear arms is not absolute, police officers may only confiscate firearms during the search of a premises if, and when, Fourth Amendment requirements have been met.

  2. Case Summary : United States v. Beldsoe, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26268 (W.D. Tex.)(March 20, 2008)

    Goldberg SegallaFebruary 15, 2012

    (The Supreme Court had recently heard oral argument in Heller, and would announce the decision several months later). Prescient of Heller, and reliant upon U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the Court held that Second Amendment rights may be subject to limited, narrowly tailored, and specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and consistent with the general right to individually keep and bear private arms. Felons,infants and those of unsound mind may properly be prohibited from possessing firearms, and for this reason § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment.