Author Topic: Rigby v Jennings  (Read 3788 times)

Oaklandopen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2022, 10:40:11 AM »
.
[/quote]

Hmmm. Isn't that a bit like saying you can't travel out of state to get an abortion?
[/quote]

My initial thought would be no because you are paying for a service provided in that state, no different than buying a pack of gum somewhere else if you are using it for your own means.  Maybe you could meet in the legal state and receive the information there on a thumb drive and take it home or something

Sending something across state lines for profit would be the problem I guess.  So I couldn't buy tax free cigarettes in delaware and drive them to NY and sell them sort of thing.  Or maybe with the abortion reference,  a doctor in a legal state couldn't perform the abortion via computer and robotics across a state line in an operating room in an illegal state

Maybe someone with better knowledge could chime in on that

Just Bill

  • Life Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2022, 11:24:52 AM »
For your consideration and reference...most of these laws were passed by idiots that don't know what a firearm actually is and knew that their votes were unconstitutional to begin with.  But they are still law until a court says they are not.  One of the less understandable things about our government.

All of the democrats and some republicans, and way too many judges, are in regular violation of their oath of office, but we as voters only have one recourse, the ballot box.  That oath seems to mean nothing to too many.  The same oath I took when I was in the service.  "Protect and defend the Constitution", not do your best to shred it.  I listen to Joe suggest that the Constitution is not absolute, and my hair catches on fire.  Yes, it can be changed, but not with the stroke of his pen.
NRA Cert. Instructor Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun
NRA Lifer
NRA RSO
DE/PA CCDW permits
AGI certified gunsmith--Cowboy Action/1911/Glock/rifle/pistol/shotgun/rimfire
AGI Firearms Appraiser/FFL 01
AGI certified Master Gunsmith

slsharp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 218
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2022, 01:50:23 PM »
Well, I could be wrong- they might consider CAD models to be "code".  If Autocad, for example, is built on code, and a designer is using that program to produce a 3-d model, is the model itself "code"?  Now, that model is converted to code using another program called a slicer, and THAT would be "code" to run the printer.  They need to clarify.  I THINK you can share models, but not printer programs, if that makes any sense.
Simon

sprue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 127
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2022, 02:25:09 PM »
Maybe abortion would be a bad example because it requires the involvement of another party. If you were, as a DE resident to travel to CO solely for the purpose of smoking weed (yeah federal laws but for the sake of argument bear with me) You wouldn't be violating any DE state laws. It feels a bit weird even to be arguing this with the existence of VPNs and whatnot to change your IP address to another region and the existence of some very prolific creators on various websites. DE residents can just google what they want without having to ask a buddy to break laws for them.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2022, 02:35:03 PM by sprue »

Oaklandopen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2022, 02:39:32 PM »
Well, I could be wrong- they might consider CAD models to be "code".  If Autocad, for example, is built on code, and a designer is using that program to produce a 3-d model, is the model itself "code"?  Now, that model is converted to code using another program called a slicer, and THAT would be "code" to run the printer.  They need to clarify.  I THINK you can share models, but not printer programs, if that makes any sense.
Simon

The main thing is technology most of the time surpasses the ability of lawmakers to make laws.  If you say the act of sharing the code or blueprints for a weapons part is illegal,  but manufacturing it yourself is not (as the latest judge seemed to say), there are still scanners out there that will allow you to copy and make your own with nothing more than someone handing you the part to "look at"

It all boils down to probably the most elegant amendment also being the most shredded with laws. All while the ones who obey the laws most are the ones least likely to use them in nefarious ways


TwistedKarma

  • Administrator
  • Life Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1029
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2022, 11:53:17 AM »
Yes,  but isnt texas abortions? If you go out of state, it counts.?
Just trying to survive in the second Great Deprssion.

oldgraygeek

  • Life Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2022, 12:04:55 AM »
If you were, as a DE resident to travel to CO solely for the purpose of smoking weed

Been there, done that, got the shirt!
"She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed."
--Sheriff Bud Boomer, Canadian Bacon

Radnor

  • Administrator
  • Life Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2382
  • New Castle Co.
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2022, 01:22:51 PM »
If you were, as a DE resident to travel to CO solely for the purpose of smoking weed

Been there, done that, got the shirt!

Did you know..   

Delaware resident with medical mj card CAN get ccdw?
That was a question I asked the investor and was told YES they can.
NRA Certified Instructor and Training Counselor
CRSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection In and Outside The Home, Home Firearm Safety, & Reloading.

Knowledge, skills, & experience have value. If you expect to profit from someone's you should expect to pay.

MarcWinkman

  • Life Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 319
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2022, 04:05:41 PM »
Just an FYI on this folks, I just got back from the courthouse where I had a hearing for a client of mine charged by the Feds with Felon in Possession of Ammunition.  Operation Safe Streets (DSP, Delaware Probation and Parole, Wilmington PD, and New Castle County PD, and U.S. Homeland Security and DEA officers) picked up my client, a person prohibited under Delaware Title 11 and turned him over to the Feds for prosecution since he would face a stiffer sentencing guideline there.  He was in possession of a handgun loaded with Winchester ammunition.  The Federal agents exercised jurisdiction over him because the ammunition in the weapon that my client was carrying traveled through interstate commerce before coming into my client's possession.  Just remember, there are squirelly things that can be done to get you jammed up in the criminal court system.  I will again reiterate, be very careful when dealing with non serialized receivers.

Oaklandopen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2022, 06:52:39 PM »
Just an FYI on this folks, I just got back from the courthouse where I had a hearing for a client of mine charged by the Feds with Felon in Possession of Ammunition.  Operation Safe Streets (DSP, Delaware Probation and Parole, Wilmington PD, and New Castle County PD, and U.S. Homeland Security and DEA officers) picked up my client, a person prohibited under Delaware Title 11 and turned him over to the Feds for prosecution since he would face a stiffer sentencing guideline there.  He was in possession of a handgun loaded with Winchester ammunition.  The Federal agents exercised jurisdiction over him because the ammunition in the weapon that my client was carrying traveled through interstate commerce before coming into my client's possession.  Just remember, there are squirelly things that can be done to get you jammed up in the criminal court system.  I will again reiterate, be very careful when dealing with non serialized receivers.

Are you able to elaborate on that anymore? Was it the ammo type or the weapon that was the problem?

And were they pinched for the recent new delaware laws or the fed laws?

Clarence

  • Life Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
  • Liberty and Independence
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2022, 06:08:26 PM »
He said it was the fact that he was a felon in possession.  The maker of the ammo was germaine because for it to be a federal crime, the ammo must have moved in “interstate commerce”, the so called commerce clause in the constitution. 
DE MD PA VA FL ccw. NRA Life Member. DSSA member. Sussex County

Quod non me necat me fortiorem facit.

Oaklandopen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2022, 08:43:36 PM »
He said it was the fact that he was a felon in possession.  The maker of the ammo was germaine because for it to be a federal crime, the ammo must have moved in “interstate commerce”, the so called commerce clause in the constitution.
,
For whatever reason I missed the word "felon"  ::), thanks

sprue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 127
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2022, 10:27:05 PM »
In that particular instance felon  in possession sounds like both a federal and state crime so the question is about jurisdiction. Privately made firearms have always been legal on a federal level, and with the injunction they now continue to be legal at the state level. Recent ATF rules changes deal with the sale and distribution of receiver components so individuals building for personal use are not affected and are not doing anything illegal. The only issue you'd run into is if you tried to sell it. Then the state and ATF could argue over who gets to charge you.

Incidentally, a case involving a felon in possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number was just ruled in the defendant's favor because at the time of the founding there were no laws governing serialization of firearms. He still got hit with the prohibited person charge though.

Bottom line is that it's going to be much harder for the state to turn law abiding people into criminals now.

Oaklandopen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2022, 10:46:25 AM »

Bottom line is that it's going to be much harder for the state to turn law abiding people into criminals now.

I would say it's going to be more difficult to keep the law abiding in prison because let's face it,  bad states will still try to navigate around scotus rulings with new laws until the lawsuits come around in the person's favor.  And we see that in the blue states right now

You would hope state legislatures see the writing on the wall and either do nothing with new proposed laws and/or void current ones

I know I wouldn't want to be the one that tries to take a newly illegal firearm to a different state for target practice just to be pulled over in possession once I cross back into de. And I feel like LE would be sneaky enough to do just that.  Probably in cahoots with the state police next to TSS on anyone with delaware plates that carries a long gun case in and out of there.  Then all they have to do is follow them once they get back into delaware and wait for some moving violation so they can pull over and investigate

MarcWinkman

  • Life Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 319
Re: Rigby v Jennings
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2022, 07:41:18 PM »
Incidentally, under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), where an officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity is ongoing, they may conduct an investigative detention for the limited purpose of determining the target individual's name, DOB, where the individual is coming from, and what their business abroad is.  Delaware has gone a step further by codifying this under its criminal code in 11 Del. C. § 1902.  In effect, in the hypothetical situation above, if it is determined by the officer that the target left the state of Delaware with a newly illegal "assault weapon" and then returned to Delaware with same, then the officer is well within his rights to initiate an investigative detention even in the absence of a traffic stop.  The standard is reasonable suspicion of the officer based upon concrete, observable facts as interpreted through the eyes of a similarly situated law enforcement officer.  Miller v. State, 25 A.3d 760 (Del. 2011).  In reaching the threshold requirement for reasonable suspicion, which is less than probable cause, an officer may rely on part on information provided to a third party so long as there is indicia of reliability for the tip received by law enforcement.  Bottom line here, folks, don't go out of state to shoot anything that's currently covered under Delaware's assault ban.