
IPFS
Sotomayer Overlooks All 14 Supreme Court Self-Defense Cases
Written by Thomas Costanzo Subject: Gun RightsSupreme Court Self-Defense Cases
High Court has examined every
aspect of self defense
Entire
nation falsely believes the issue has never come up
For
Immediate Release:
Sotomayer Misses All 14 Self Defense Cases
Sotomayer Misses All 14 Self Defense Cases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 21, 2009
Full contact info at end
July 21, 2009
Full contact info at end
by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
Supreme Court Gun Cases
In Congressional testimony, Supreme Court nominee
Sonia Sotomayer claimed she couldn't think of a self-defense case having come
before the Supreme Court, adding, "I could be wrong, but I can't think of
one." Independent research shows that fourteen separate Supreme Court
cases, from 1895 to 1985, addressed every basic aspect of personal self
defense. All of them held that self defense is a valid, justifiable and long-standing
tenet of American law.
The Bloomfield Press book "Supreme Court Gun
Cases" (Kopel, Halbrook, Korwin), released in 2003 and in the Supreme
Court's library, covers the 92 High Court gun cases in existence at that time.
Four additional gun cases (plus the original 92) are included in the followup,
"The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed," released in 2008. The
fourteen cases that directly address self defense are summarized below in
Q&A format. Full summaries of the cases are found in "The Heller Case"
book, http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm,
and the cases themselves can be linked to from the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based
company's website, http://www.gunlaws.com,
using the National Directory button.
The brief index below is a convenient research and
navigation tool, and a way to set the record straight on what the Court has
already done. Read the entire case for a thorough understanding of each one.
The news media, pundits, Congress and Supreme
Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer have unfortunately exhibited complete ignorance
of these cases, and public policy is harmed by that lack of knowledge.
The Supreme Court has recognized, addressed and
answered all the most fundamental questions about self defense. The idea that
they have never addressed this core American issue is completely false, as the
numerous cases clearly demonstrate. The news media is encouraged to correct any
misconceptions that may exist on this subject and in Ms. Sotomayer's sworn
testimony.
IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER:
KEY:
Name Date Citation Page
Acers v. United
States
1896 164 U.S.
388 238
Is fear of a deadly attack, without reasonable demonstrated grounds for the fear, sufficient to support a claim of self defense [NO]; Must the danger be immediate [YES]; Can any object be considered as a deadly weapon depending on how it was used [YES].
Is fear of a deadly attack, without reasonable demonstrated grounds for the fear, sufficient to support a claim of self defense [NO]; Must the danger be immediate [YES]; Can any object be considered as a deadly weapon depending on how it was used [YES].
Alberty v. United
States
1896 162 U.S.
499 231
If a husband sees another man trying to get into his wife’s room window at night is it natural for him to investigate further [YES]; Is the husband under a duty to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstances [NO]; May the husband use only as much force as is necessary to repel the assault [YES]; If in an ensuing confrontation the husband shoots and kills the other man, then flees, must his flight in and of itself be seen as evidence of his guilt [NO].
If a husband sees another man trying to get into his wife’s room window at night is it natural for him to investigate further [YES]; Is the husband under a duty to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstances [NO]; May the husband use only as much force as is necessary to repel the assault [YES]; If in an ensuing confrontation the husband shoots and kills the other man, then flees, must his flight in and of itself be seen as evidence of his guilt [NO].
Allen v. United
States
1896 164 U.S.
492 241
Are words alone sufficient provocation to justify an assault [NO]; Are words alone sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter [NO]; Can premeditation and intent to kill be determined from your actions [YES]; Although flight after a possibly criminal event may suggest guilt, does it prove it conclusively [NO].
Are words alone sufficient provocation to justify an assault [NO]; Are words alone sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter [NO]; Can premeditation and intent to kill be determined from your actions [YES]; Although flight after a possibly criminal event may suggest guilt, does it prove it conclusively [NO].
Allison v. United
States
1895 160 U.S.
203 216
Is it reasonable to believe that you’re in immediate deadly danger if a person, known to be abusive, known to carry a pistol, and who has made public threats against your life, makes a motion as if to draw down on you, even if it turns out he wasn’t armed at the time [YES]; If there is no corroborating evidence besides your testimony, may the jury decide to take your word for it and acquit based on your credibility [YES]; If you have your deer rifle with you while visiting a friend’s house and your adversary shows up, and in an ensuing confrontation you shoot him, can the judge instruct the jury that you’re guilty of murder if you armed yourself to go hunt down your adversary, when there is no evidence to support this claim [NO].
Is it reasonable to believe that you’re in immediate deadly danger if a person, known to be abusive, known to carry a pistol, and who has made public threats against your life, makes a motion as if to draw down on you, even if it turns out he wasn’t armed at the time [YES]; If there is no corroborating evidence besides your testimony, may the jury decide to take your word for it and acquit based on your credibility [YES]; If you have your deer rifle with you while visiting a friend’s house and your adversary shows up, and in an ensuing confrontation you shoot him, can the judge instruct the jury that you’re guilty of murder if you armed yourself to go hunt down your adversary, when there is no evidence to support this claim [NO].
Andersen v. United
States
1898 170 U.S.
481 255
If an indictment is brought charging that a defendant shot and then threw a victim’s body into the sea, so the exact cause of death cannot be known, is the indictment flawed and invalid [NO]; Do the elements of self defense have to be present for an accused person to successfully claim self defense [YES].
If an indictment is brought charging that a defendant shot and then threw a victim’s body into the sea, so the exact cause of death cannot be known, is the indictment flawed and invalid [NO]; Do the elements of self defense have to be present for an accused person to successfully claim self defense [YES].
Beard v. United
States
1895 158 U.S. 550
208
Can you stand your ground with a shotgun against an unprovoked armed attack on your property near your home [YES]; Is there a greater duty to retreat on your own property than in your house [NO].
Can you stand your ground with a shotgun against an unprovoked armed attack on your property near your home [YES]; Is there a greater duty to retreat on your own property than in your house [NO].
Brown v. United
States
1921 256 U.S.
335 285
Is there a duty to retreat when attacked by a man with a knife [NO]; Believing you’re in a mortal conflict, if you fire a shot in the heat of combat, which in cool reflection later may be seen as unnecessary, may you still be acquitted on grounds of self defense [YES]; Is your right of self defense roughly similar in your home, on your land, and at your work [YES]; Can detached reflection be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife [NO].
Is there a duty to retreat when attacked by a man with a knife [NO]; Believing you’re in a mortal conflict, if you fire a shot in the heat of combat, which in cool reflection later may be seen as unnecessary, may you still be acquitted on grounds of self defense [YES]; Is your right of self defense roughly similar in your home, on your land, and at your work [YES]; Can detached reflection be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife [NO].
Gourko v. United
States
1894 153 U.S.
183 189
If you shoot someone who has repeatedly threatened you, and the circumstances of the shooting are not found to be justifiable as self defense, does the fact that you armed yourself in response to the threat automatically make the shooting murder (as opposed to manslaughter) [NO].
If you shoot someone who has repeatedly threatened you, and the circumstances of the shooting are not found to be justifiable as self defense, does the fact that you armed yourself in response to the threat automatically make the shooting murder (as opposed to manslaughter) [NO].
Logan v. United
States
1892 144 U.S.
263 180
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution [YES]; Is a prisoner in legal custody entitled to protection “while he is deprived of the ordinary means of defending and protecting himself” [YES].
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution [YES]; Is a prisoner in legal custody entitled to protection “while he is deprived of the ordinary means of defending and protecting himself” [YES].
Rowe v. United
States
1896 164 U.S.
546 247
If a man is provoked into making a minor assault on someone, and then backs off in good faith, is his right to self defense restored if the person he assaulted attacks him with a deadly weapon? [YES]; Is he required to retreat under such circumstances [NO]; Is he under an obligation to try to only wound an attacker when fighting for his life [NO]; Can either party in a mutual combat claim self defense [NO].
If a man is provoked into making a minor assault on someone, and then backs off in good faith, is his right to self defense restored if the person he assaulted attacks him with a deadly weapon? [YES]; Is he required to retreat under such circumstances [NO]; Is he under an obligation to try to only wound an attacker when fighting for his life [NO]; Can either party in a mutual combat claim self defense [NO].
Starr v. United
States
1894 153 U.S.
614 196
If a law officer legally serving a warrant shoots at a suspect without identifying himself, is the suspect justified in shooting back and killing the officer in self defense [YES].
If a law officer legally serving a warrant shoots at a suspect without identifying himself, is the suspect justified in shooting back and killing the officer in self defense [YES].
Tennessee v.
Garner
1985 471 U.S.
1 428
Is the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of all felony suspects constitutionally unreasonable [YES]; Is the use of deadly force by a police officer permissible under the 4th Amendment, if necessary to prevent the escape of a felony suspect who threatens the officer with a weapon, or if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, if, where feasible, some warning has been given [YES].
Is the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of all felony suspects constitutionally unreasonable [YES]; Is the use of deadly force by a police officer permissible under the 4th Amendment, if necessary to prevent the escape of a felony suspect who threatens the officer with a weapon, or if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, if, where feasible, some warning has been given [YES].
Thompson v. United
States
1894 155 U.S.
271 203
Does arming yourself after being threatened, and then traveling the only road in the area where you know your adversary may be, turn a subsequent shooting of the adversary during a confrontation into murder? [NO]; Is arming yourself for legitimate self defense premeditation [NO].
Does arming yourself after being threatened, and then traveling the only road in the area where you know your adversary may be, turn a subsequent shooting of the adversary during a confrontation into murder? [NO]; Is arming yourself for legitimate self defense premeditation [NO].
Wallace v. United
States 1896
162 U.S. 466 224
Is it up to the jury to decide whether a homicide is murder, manslaughter or justifiable [YES]; Does a perfect right of self defense require blamelessness in the confrontation and an act of necessity only [YES]; Can you claim self defense if you had intentionally brought about a lethal conflict [NO]; Is it up to the jury to decide whether you armed yourself defensively or otherwise [YES]; Is it murder if you enter a quarrel without felonious or malicious intent, and then, under reasonable belief of imminent mortal danger, you kill the assailant [NO]; Does the fact that you deliberately go and arm yourself, for self defense or other innocent purpose, turn a subsequent shooting necessarily from manslaughter to murder [NO].
Is it up to the jury to decide whether a homicide is murder, manslaughter or justifiable [YES]; Does a perfect right of self defense require blamelessness in the confrontation and an act of necessity only [YES]; Can you claim self defense if you had intentionally brought about a lethal conflict [NO]; Is it up to the jury to decide whether you armed yourself defensively or otherwise [YES]; Is it murder if you enter a quarrel without felonious or malicious intent, and then, under reasonable belief of imminent mortal danger, you kill the assailant [NO]; Does the fact that you deliberately go and arm yourself, for self defense or other innocent purpose, turn a subsequent shooting necessarily from manslaughter to murder [NO].
--------
If this report works for you --
please tell your friends!
Sign up (or off) for email delivery:
alan@gunlaws.com
please tell your friends!
Sign up (or off) for email delivery:
alan@gunlaws.com
Our new 32-page full-color catalog is still warm
off the press. Send a street address and we'll send you the catalog at no cost,
full of cool new stuff -- DVDs, books, even "Disarm Criminals First"
buttons you can't get elsewhere. books@gunlaws.com
"Confrontational Politics" This book is just brilliant -- it explains precisely
how politics actually works, takes the mystery out of why things are
the way they are, and empowers you to take control. Undercuts the incredible
and unfair influence some players have -- once you understand their tactics and
the pressure points they use that really move the world, you get to fight back
on level ground. Newly released edition is bigger, better typeset, and only
$12.95. Read this book and take command, an absolute eye-opener. "Politics
works, just not the way you think it does." http://www.gunlaws.com/books3.htm
The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed! is now available! No more waiting -- get yours now! Don't
fall for the BS floating around, find out where your rights really stand. The
case will rule for years to come, know how it works for and against you. This
"first edition of history" captures the excitement of The Case That
Saved The Second Amendment. Your rights are crucial, this book helps you
protect them. Complete details now posted: http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm
Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for our f r e e full-color catalog
Bloomfield Press
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for our f r e e full-color catalog
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.
"No one could make a greater mistake than he
who did nothing because he could do only a little." --Edmund Burke
Guns Save Lives
Guns Stop Crime
Guns Are Why America Is Still F r e e
Guns Stop Crime
Guns Are Why America Is Still F r e e