United States v. Parker

directly express per- or side the record whether or as to the determination appropriate has been The defense did attack the cooperation opinion. sonal in this cru- testimony truthful their witnesses on credibility cible. curry incentive to favor. account of their is. exactly what this trial just And that’s jury to view these The court instructed sig- you appreciated if haven’t And caution, testimony great with witnesses’ nificance, out of this nothing take else caution than that of other greater and with leave, that. you but when courtroom witnesses, had fa- because received trial is to try to do with a we That what government. treatment from the vored truth, a crucible a crucible of create emphasized this instruction The AUSA parties all of the bring To truth. closing argument. And evidence from two bear, all the factors bear. bring of. officers corroborated law enforcement knowledge in that have bring people To cooperating witnesses’ testi- much of it and you to look at this and allow about balance, light of all the mony. On That’s the determinations. your make evidence, say improper that the crucible. statements, vouching, warrant re- though that in that crucible you if believe And plain error. versal away getting simply people these will, murder, justice you if with AFFIRMED. must, done, as the you being then instruc- you these

Judge instructed testimony

tions, consider their you must know, I you caution. And

with more about that qualms have

don’t in- ask- simply the law is

struction because just exactly do what

ing you to Vergel first

agents did. When Amber said, “Look, attorney up and the walked America, UNITED STATES say,” as the going she’s this is what Plaintiff-Appellee, testified, took that with agents grain of salt.... instances is the The vice both PARKER, Defendant-Appellant. Dale court, as law that the as well implication 03-4119. No. enforcement, can, has, and will monitor the wit truthfulness. Whether witnesses’ Appeals, States Court course, truthfully, of have testified nesses Tenth Circuit. determine; it is entirely jury for the credibility that a improper to communicate 24, 2004. March by the has been made determination AUSA, agents, law enforcement government knows being truthful and the witness is

whether veracity of the witness’s

stands behind See,

testimony. e.g., United States (9th Cir.1987);

Shaw, 714, 717 Kerr, 981 F.2d 1050 time, At the state the same anything out-

ments here do not refer

Mary Corporon, Corporon C. & Williams, P.C., Utah, City, Salt Lake for defendant-appellant. Warner, Paul M. United States Attor- ney, Hagen, and Diana Assistant United Utah, Attorney, City, Salt Lake for plaintiff-appelleе. KELLY, Before and McWILLIAMS BRISCOE, Judges. Circuit BRISCOE, Judge. Circuit Defendant guilty Dale Parker was found (ACA), under the Assimilative Crimes Act § carrying a loaded fire- street, arm in a vehicle public or on a violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-10-505.1 He contends his conviction violates the Second and Tenth Amendments. af-We firm as to Parker’s Second Amendment claim, but dismiss his Tenth Amendment claim lack standing.

I. The facts of undisputed. this case are 3, 2002, On October pick- Parker drove his up Dugway truck onto the Proving Ground perform Utah to civilian contract work. gate The front was located inside the Dug- Ground, way Proving warning signs posted at gate “Warning the front stated: Army boundary. All persons are "(1) 1. Utah Code Ann. 76-10-505 states: law, person Unless otherwise authorized (a) may carry a loaded firearm: in or on a vehicle; (b) street; (c) any public posted prohibited area. A violation of this section is class B misdemeanor.” statute, challenges to a constitutional Persons regulations. to all subject apply de novo review. See United entry to search vehicles Morris, Proving Cir. Dugway and exit into boundary of within and while Grounds 2001). upon prob- based military reservation Act Assimilative Crimes necessity.” App. cause or able search, of a random As a result

8-9. by briefly reviewing pur- the begin We gate at the stopped pickup was Parker’s of purpose of the ACA. “The pose and text Jessie James by Specialist and searched fill gaps is to borrow state law to the ACA caliber a loaded .38 Lynch found Lynch. applies in criminal law that the federal pickup. of Parker’s the seat revolver under enclaves.” federal then gate the and detained at Parker was Adams, military police depart- to the transported of provides pun- thus “a method The ACA In Par- was interviewed. ment where he ishing government a crime committed on statement, “I forgot he stated: sworn ker’s way and to the extent the reservations I truck when my my I had revolver punishable if com- that it would have been remembered, I facility. Had on the drove jurisdic- surrounding mitted within the Id. gate.” it at the I have declared would omitted). (internal quotation tion.” at 27. ends, the ACA states: To achieve these to trial, a motion Parker filed Prior to (a) thе upon any or Whoever within ACA, the as charge, claiming the dismiss re- existing or hereafter places now him, his Second applied to violated in sec- acquired provided or as served authority arms and right ... act guilty title is tion of this arms is re- right to bear regulate the to which, not made although or omission the Tenth under to the states served of Con- by any enactment punishable de- magistrate judge Amendment. if committed punishable would gress, be and he motion to dismiss nied Parker’s jurisdiction of the within the or omitted magis- the guilty by found tried and was situated, place ... such State which pay Parker to The court ordered trate. at the time in force by the laws thereof assessment fee. special and a fine $10 $90 omission, ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍guilty of shall be of such act or and Federal Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. pun- a like a like offense 58(g)(2)(B), Procedure Rule of Criminal ishment. order of magistrate’s the appealed Parker 13(a). Title 18 Section 18 U.S.C. Upon re- court. conviction to district and territorial special maritime defines court, Parker refiled quest by the district includ- as jurisdiction of the United States dismiss, again which his motion to ing: denied. acquired Any reserved lands States, and the use of the United II. juris- or concurrent under the exclusive prosecu- contends his appeal, Parker On thereof, any place purchased diction to the ACA violates pursuant tion acquired by or otherwise arms under the Second keep and bear legislature of the by consent the United He also contends Amendment. be, for the same shall which State authority to constitutional States lacks arsenal, fort, magazine, the erection of violating a him in court with chаrge federal building. or other needful dockyard, control statute because gun state here, the ACA applied § 7. As Amendment reserves Tenth charge federal enabled the As these are arms to the states. regulate with a violation of Utah criminal notice that weapon any part ordinary law that violation was committed on military equipment when or that property. its use could contribute to the common defense. 307 U.S. at Miller has regulated being “A well Militia neces- interpreted by been this court and other State, sary security of a free courts to hold that the Second Amendment Arms, people keep and bear guarantee does not an individual Const, infringed.” shall not be amd. transport firearm where prosecution pursuant II. a federal Whether there is no evidence that possession of that violating to the ACA for a state con- preservation firearm was related to the or trol statute violates an individual’s Second efficiency well-regulated militia. See an Amendment issue of first im- 55, Lewis v. United 445 U.S. 65 n. pression. 8, (1980) 915, 100 S.Ct. 63 L.Ed.2d 198 analysis guided by Our the Supremе (citing Miller for proposition that “the Sec- Miller, ruling Court’s in United States v. guarantees Amendment no right to 174, 816, 307 U.S. 59 S.Ct. 83 L.Ed. 1206 keep and a firearm that bear does not have (1939). Miller, defendants, In unre- some reasonable relationship pres- citizens, private stricted were indicted for efficiency ervation or regulated of a well (Act), violating the National Firearms Act militia”);2 see Lockyer, also Silveira v. 1132(c)-(d)(1934) as a result of (9th (refer- 1052, Cir.2003) 312 F.3d Miller’s, transporting unregistered an double ring rejection to implicit of tradi- 12-gauge shotgun barrel interstate com- tional individual rights position); Love v. merce, having posses- not their (4th Cir.1995) 120, Pepersack, 47 F.3d stamped sion a permitting written order (“Since [Miller], the lower federal courts possession of the firearm. The defendants uniformly have held that the Second filed a to quash motion the indictment and collective, preserves Amendment rather alleged the Act was unconstitutional be- individual, than right.”); United States v. cause it violated the Second Amendment. Toner, (2d Cir.1984) 728 F.2d agreed The district court with the defen- that, (interpreting Miller to stand for rule granted dants and their motion. The Su- relationship absent preserva- reasonable reversed, preme holding: Court militia, tion of well-regulated there is no In any the absence of firearm); evidence tend- fundamental possess ing possession Oakes, to show that or use of a United States v. 564 F.2d (10th Cir.1977) gun having “shot a barrel of less than (analyzing Miller and con- eighteen length” inches cluding this time apply the “[t]o amendment so has some reasonable relationship guarantee as to appellant’s right to keep preservation efficienсy regu- of a well unregistered an firearm which militia, say lated been shown to have connection to the guarantees militia, merely technically because he is and bear such an instru- member of the Kansas would be Certainly judicial ment. it is not within unjustifiable in logic terms of either Lewis, ny, In noting the Court held that laws which the laws "are neither based prohibit possession criteria, a felon from a firearm do constitutionally suspect nor do Although not violate the Due Process Clause. upon any constitutionally protected trench thе Court did not address the Second Amend- liberties.” 445 U.S. at n. 100 S.Ct. 915. directly, applied ment it rational-basis scruti- banning Emer sale of devices does explosive law but see United States policy”); Cir.2001) (read (5th infringe upon person’s son, Second best, satisfy Parker can and, sup rights). ment Unless as indecisive ing Miller criteria, arms). he on his prevail these four cannot to bear an individual’s porting Notably, Amendment Par- Second claim. Miller, repeatedly Drawing tending no presented ker has evidence prevail held have meets any show that he challenge, must show party criteria. in connec of a firearm is “well-regulat participation with tion our in Ha Although prior opinion “militia.” ed” “state” See us ney guide would to an affirmance Cir.2001) Haney, 264 F.3d conviction, urges Parker’s he us to reverse gun-con (holding “that a federal criminal reasoning adopt the district court and Emerson, does not the Second trol law violate found impairs (5th Cir.2001). Emerson, unless the state’s it In F.3d 203 mili well-regulated ability to maintain a concluded that Amend court the Second Oakes, (stating “pur tia”); at 387 confers an individual ... was tо arms, of the second amendment to a pose apart any connection the the effectiveness and assure that preserve militia.3 court held the state-run militia”). Apply of the right continuation state the “protects Second a individuals, set out Haney including actu ing principle, this those not then satisfy to es a must four-part party ally engaged test a militia or member violation: military training, pri a Second Amendment tablish active service or matter, must party] threshold fire vately [a “As a and their own possess bear (1) militiа; part he is of a state 270 F.3d at The Emerson show arms.” 260. (2) militia, reading and there participation by the his court reached conclusion state; in, by regulated’ ‘well the and did narrowly concluding Miller Miller by that type only the at are used [guns of hold that the issue] Second militia; [the of the right and his arms the protects the to bear connected to militia. reasonably was concluded issue] at of a The court context militia 1165. See service.” 264 F.3d at the protects “the Second Amendment F.3d Bayles, States v. privately also United of individuals to right (10th Cir.2002) (applying are suitable their own firearms that bear individual, restricting person a and are uphold personal weapons federal law as by protective general type to a domestic violence of the kind or excluded firearm); Miller, particu the regardless a whether possessing order from Graham, actually is then a member lar individual Cir.2002) find 264. Haney to a militia.” (applying distinction, however, addressing it is a mistake scope the of the Second In decision, states, Amendment, as "revers- agreed with as Parker court read the Emerson ing” district court on the Second court the district that the agreed opposed interpretation a the courts right because provides an individual as point-that central right The court on Parker’s pure collective to bear arms. conferring in- as ultimately court because Amendment should be read reversed the district Therefore, that, purposes rights. though the defendant dividual it concluded even arms, claim, considering we focus right Parker's had an individual to bear comprehensive dis- reasonably Circuit's limited where the Fifth more could be by against provided the district restraining in lieu of that order had been entered cussion Beyond court. for threats of domestic violence. him Third, We conclude Parker’s reliance on putting Emer aside the fact that Miller unavailing requires son is for several that a party reasons. have some connection First, militia, rely to a state-run ruling even the Fifth Cir- cuit’s most narrow interpretation another circuit when this court has of Miller ruled support does not Parker’s claim. To contrary. Parker’s rеliance on Em only extent Miller stands for the by rule that rulings erson is foreclosed this court’s shotgun a sawed-off Gh’aham, is not a fire- Bayles, Haney, where we arm and therefore not by covered the Sec- showing that a person held that absent Amendment, presented no part well-regulated state-run evidence his revolver would come does not the Second Amendment establish within the category of arms used possess a firearm. citizen’s Sec military. trial, To contrary, Officer ond, the Fifth Circuit stands alone in its Michael Palhegyi, who wаs part of the interpretation of the Second Amendment military police unit that took Parker into conferring as an individual custody, testified that Parker’s firearm contrast, Fourth, Sixth, arms. In Sev was “not a military grade considered enth, and adopted Ninth Circuits have and, weapon” instead, commonly more (also interpretation most restrictive known personal used for target defense or prac- model”) as rights “the collective App. tice. at 30. We conclude Parker’s Second Amendment. Under “the collec prоsecution by pursuant the United States model,” tive the Second Amendment to the ACA did not violate the Second applies never merely individuals but Amendment. recognizes the state’s to arm its mili Gillespie City tia. See Indianapolis, of Tenth Amendment (7th Cir.1999); 185 F.3d 693 Hickman v. We do not reach the merits of Par (9th Block, Cir.1996); Love, 81 F.3d 98 47 ker’s argument that his prosecu federal 120; Warin, v. tion violated the Tenth Amendment be (6th Cir.1976); F.2d 103 see also United cause we sponte conclude ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍sua that Parker Price, (7th States v. 328 F.3d standing lacks as a private citizen to pur Cir.2003) (rejecting reasoning adopted in sue this claim. See Rector City & Coun Emerson). Similarly, in addition to this Denver, (10th ty 348 F.3d Cir. First, Third, Eighth, and Elev 2003) (“Standing jurisdictional ... raises enth adopted “sophisti Circuits have all questions and required we are to consider cated collective model.” Under this sponte the issue sua to ensure that there is interpretation Amendment, of the Second an Article III controversy case or before arms, an individual has a but us.”). only in direct affiliation with a well-orga state-supported nized militia. See United In Mountain Legal Foundation (11th States v. Wright, F.3d 1265 Costle, Cir. 630 F.2d Cir. 1997); Rybar, 1980), we held private plaintiffs dо (3d Cir.1996); Hale, not have standing bring Tenth Amend (8th Cir.1992); 978 F.2d 1016 Cases v. ment claims when their interests are not (1st 131 F.2d 916 aligned with the state’s interests.4 In Cos- presently split among There private plaintiff is circuits present a Tenth Amend- question Costle, of whether the Tenth Amend- challenge), ment with 630 F.2d at 761. provides private ment standing. citizens with Supreme recently granted Court certiora- Compare Gillespie, (allowing 185 F.3d 693 118, 144, L.Ed. tie, determined 306 U.S. the EPA Administrator fed- not with complying (noting had not that Colorado where states legisla- law. The state environmental system pow- eral objected supplying to TVA on various challenged the decision tors er, private companies, “absent the states but statutory grounds, constitutional officers, standing their have no filed a Attorney General the Colorado any question to raise under the [Tenth suit opposition. concluded We brief Amendment]”). “[h]ence, standing party the one with clear conviction, AFFIRM con- We Parker’s ... arguments to raise the constitutional cluding the Second Amendment does argu- to make those only declined prosecution his under the ACA. We bar Id. rejected them.” expressly but ments prejudice with Parker’s Tenth DISMISS such, pre- the case we determined that As standing. claim for lack controversy justiciable case or no sented argu- to the constitutional regard with KELLY, concurring. Judge, Circuit and dismissed the Tenth ments claim, stating “[ojnly the State exception of the Second With the protect- press claims aimed at standing II, join I Amendment discussion in Part Tenth sovereign powers under the ing its opinion. Concerning court’s the Sec- Amendment.” Amendment, I affirm the con- would case, by simply noting au- that the obvious challenges viction In this prose- prosecution restricting the federal thority purpose — gun control violating him for a state cute weapons base to concealed violates argues prosecution He law. military personnel a reason- identified —is it inter- Amendment because the Tenth contra- restriction thus does not able the state’s with Second feres I write Amendment. vene un- argument particularly This powers. disagree with separately because I present in the case because persuasive analysis opinion in the and because court’s state prosecution to enforce seeks Supreme Court nor Tenth Circuit neither be hard Simply put, we would law. this court relied precedent repre- to conclude that Parker pressed asked question adequately addresses Tenth or that the senting Utah’s interests prose- a federal and answered: “Whether the federal is violated when to the ACA pursuant [Assimilative cution a law acts enforce Utah gun con- violating a state Act] Crimes In enclave. which is violated a federal trol statute violates an individual’s in Cоs- this court’s clear statement light of rights.” tie, standing that Parker lacks we conclude violating guilty Mr. Parker found claim. See bring his Tenth Amendment 76-10-505,1 § assimi- Ann. as Elec. Utah Code Tennessee Power Co. also TVA vehicle, on County Carrying loaded firearm to address this conflict in Pierce ri 720, Guillen, 129, street, 154 prohibited U.S. 123 S.Ct. 537 or in area. (2003), law, to ad- then declined by L.Ed.2d 610 but a Unless authorized otherwise other the issue and the case on dress resolved may carry firearm: person a loaded argued grounds. Because neither side vehicle; (a) a in or on standing we find no the issue of here and street; (b) any public directly Supreme precedent to the con- Court (c) posted prohibited area. our trary, we conclude Costle controls is a class B A violation of this section disposition of the issue. misdemeanor. §Ann. Utah Code 76-10-505. provides: 1. That section 13(a). by § lated The State Certainly ment. it is judicial not within provision generally prohibits carrying weapon notice that any part loaded firearm in or on a Al vehicle.2 ordinary military equipment or that though Supreme Court has twice stat its usе could contribute to the common ed that the Second Amendment does Tennessee, Aymette defense. v. State of apply solely to States because it is a limita Tenn., 154, 158. 2 Humph., Illinois, tion on power, national Presser v. Miller, 178, 307 U.S. at 59 S.Ct. 816. In 252, 265, 580, U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. 615 States, 55, 65, Lewis v. United 445 U.S. (1886); Cruikshank, 915, (1980), S.Ct. 63 L.Ed.2d 198 542, 553, (1875); 23 L.Ed. 588 2 Ron Court held that the prohibiting ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍statute Nowak, D. E. ald Rotunda & John Trea felon possessing a firearm was not tise on Constitutional Law-Substance and process, violative of due noting that (3d ed.1999); Procedure 14.2 at 520 n. 4 regulatory firearm restrictions “are Vlacil, 677, see also State v. 645 P.2d upon nеither based constitutionally suspect (Utah 1982) (Oaks, J., n. 1 & id. at 681 criteria, nor do upon any trench con- concurring), provision State stitutionally protected liberties.” Id. at n. being case is enforced on a federal enclave 8. The Court cited Miller for the proposi- government. the federal See Lewis v. tion that “the guaran- 160, 155, 162, 523 U.S. tees no and bear a firearm 1135, (1998) (dis 140 L.Ed.2d 271 that does not have ‘some reasonable rela- cussing application function and of Assimi- tionship preservation efficiency or ” Act). lative Crimes a well rеgulated militia.’ (quoting Miller, In United States v. 307 U.S. Miller, 816). 307 U.S. at 59 S.Ct. (1939), 59 S.Ct. 83 L.Ed. 1206 Although not required by the cases be- Supreme rejected Court a Second Amend- them, courts, fore including the Tenth Cir- ment challenge to the National Firearms cuit, have concluded based the above Act. The case involved restricted fire- collective, the Second Amendment is a arm, specifically a double barrel twelve rather than an right. individual See Unit- gauge shot having a barrel than less Graham, ed States v. 305 F.3d eighteen in length. inches In reversing (10th Cir.2002). Our first interpret- case district court which found a Second ing Miller prosecution involved law, Amendment violation under 26 as matter of 5861(d) U.S.C. possession the Court held: for unlawful an unregistered gun. machine In the absence of tending evidence Oakes, States v. show that or use of a despite the “shotgun universal having a barrel of less than admonition to decide eighteen in constitutional issues length” inches at this time narrowly, rejected first an has some reasonable “absolute relationship to the arms,” preservation keep to efficiency rejected of a and then regu- argu- well an militia, lated say ment based the defendant’s apparent guarantees Second Amendment membership persons class of constitut- keep and bear such an instru- ing the Kansas militia. Id. at 387. Even 2. Mr. did not declare a loaded .38 Colt contended at the trial that it was neither double gate action six-shot revolver at the military grade peace nor current officer installation and it was discovered grade, solely personal but rather for self-de- a Although in random search. the firearm target practiсe. fense and Aplt.App.at service, police one time in Mr. Parker reasonably gun was connected to his might have techni- though the defendant militia, a of the Kansas militia cally been member service. any connection between had not shown

he Id.; Crawley, also see United States v. militia. Id. firearm and the the restricted (7th Cir.1988) F.2d (discussing Baer, 235 F.3d United States dictum). (without any The court record (10th Cir.2000), prosecution a un- involved support) speculated that a “well-regulated” (k) § 922(g)(1) & for unlaw- der 18 U.S.C. actively militia is one maintained and (re- by a fеlon possession ful of a firearm Haney, trained the state. 264 F.3d at an and of a firearm with person) stricted subsequent ap- 1165-66. Our cases have (restricted fire- serial number obliterated test, not ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍in plied though needed arm). circuits The court stated that “the devices, persons context of restricted consistently upheld the constitutional- have conclude that no Second Amendment viola- regulations ... ab- ity weapons of federal tion occurred. way in affect sent evidence Graham, 305 F.3d 1094 a mili- regulated maintenance of well (10th Cir.2002), a prosecution involved un- the fact a Regardless of tia.” Id. 842(a)(1) § der proscribing 18 U.S.C. in useful a well gun might machine be knowingly engaging the business that a felon apparent it is regulated dealing explosive materials without a would not be. license, which, imagina- if had one a wild Haney, Beginning with United States tion, involving could be viewed as a restric- (10th Cir.2001), analysis weapon. tion on a Id. at 1106. Al- more struc- in the Tenth became Circuit afterthought, most as an the defendant Haney prosecution involved under tured. together an attempted argument cobble 922(o) possession for unlawful 18 U.S.C. have a explosive devices common use firearm). (restricted aof machine exercises, military training and there- that “a criminal The court held part of a fore such devices are does not violate the Sec- gun-control law participate in those exercises impairs it Amendment unless court and bear arms. 1106. The ability well-regulated to maintain state’s correctly assuming even a de- noted that 264 F.3d at 1165. Haney, militia.” stated, fense was and factu- why legally discussed cоurt then govern- to reasonable Be- ally, prevail. the defendant could restrictions. Id. The court’s dis- mental had gun-control cause the federal statute totally test is regarding cussion under the au- exemption possession an for unnecessary holding. Likewise State, thority ability the State’s Bayles, well-regulated militia could maintain a (10th Cir.2002), prosecution under impaired of law. Id. The be as a matter 922(g)(8) dicta, clearly re- in what was then subject to firearm while a domestic vio- showing a marked on what factual defen- order, the court not- protective lence while prove a need make to dant of the four- gratuitously ed that evidence ment violation: offered, the bot- Haney test was not part matter, must show As threshold he reason- was that the statute was a (2) tom line (1) militia; part that he is of a state infringe that did not Sec- therein, able restriction participation the and his (3) of rights. Regardless the state; ond Amendment by the regulated” is “well test, militia; defendant was restricted by guns are machine used posses weapon. person and could not of thе machine 1288 uniform,

Ail of cases right these involved fed Amendment are This constitutional. types eral restrictions various fire ease also can be decided on narrow uniform, arms federal restrictions on premature- basis-there no need to dilute persons possessing such the firearms. ly many what consider to the be one of right Whether the Second Amendment is most important amendments to the United an individual or a collective has States Constitution. been Supreme decided Court- aspect

Miller did not define this right, need not here.

reach issue See Printz United 898, 1, 938 n. 117 U.S. S.Ct.

2365, (Thomas, J., 138 L.Ed.2d 914

сoncurring). Justice Thomas has acknowl “growing body scholarly

edged com mentary” indicating the Second NATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE is an right, individual COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, although contrary he also notes authority supporting a collective view. Id. at 2,n. 117 S.Ct. Two 2365. circuits have COMPANY, SCOR REINSURANCE question exhaustively examined ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍Defendant-Appellant. light of this academic debate and reached No. 03-6079. contrary Compare conclusions. (5th Emerson, 203, Court Appeals, Cir.2001) (individual right), denied, cert. Tenth Circuit. U.S. S.Ct. 153 L.Ed.2d (2002), Lockyer, with Silveira v. April 2004. Cir.2002) (collective - denied,

right), -, cert. (2003). 157 L.Ed.2d 693

Fifth approach Circuit’s is deserving of

serious consideration. The court reasoned preamble

that the of the Second Amend (“A regulated Militia, being well nec

essary State,”) security free

could override clear substantive (“the

guarantee of the Second Amendment keep Arms, people and bear Emerson, infringed.”).

shall not be

F.3d at Viewing the amendment

against background the historical that ex time,

isted it concluded large,

people at from whom any militia formed, guaranteed

would be the right (and and bear arms be conversant use)

with their so as objec to facilitate the preamble.

tive 234-36. Like recognized the Fifth Circuit

reasonable restrictions the Second

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Parker

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 24, 2004

Citation: 362 F.3d 1279

Docket Number: 03-4119

Court Abbreviation: 10th Cir.