HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES

[GaryS]

Henderson 9, United States 0.

Supreme Court of the United States

One way to ensure that result, as the Government notes,
is to order that the guns be turned over to a firearms
dealer, himself independent of the felon’s control, for
subsequent sale on the open market. See, e.g., United
Statesv. Zaleski, 686 F. 3d 90, 92–94 (CA2 2012). Indeed,
we can see no reason, absent exceptional circumstances, to
disapprove a felon’s motion for such a sale, whether or not
he has picked the vendor. That option, however, is not the
only one available under §922(g). A court may also grant
a felon’s request to transfer his guns to a person who
expects to maintain custody of them, so long as the recipient will not allow the felon toexert any influence over
their use. In considering such a motion, the court may
properly seek certain assurances: for example, it may ask
the proposed transferee to promise to keep the guns away
from the felon, and to acknowledge that allowing him to
use them would aid and abet a §922(g) violation.

A person does not lose his property interest in his legally owned firearms if he becomes prohibited due to conviction. He can still sell or otherwise transfer his property without possessing them.

[LoboGunLeather]

While this case appears to be a true 'no brainer' I am still a bit surprised at the unanimous ruling, given the known leanings of several members of the court.

[GaryS]

Justice Kagan wrote the opinion of the Court. Which is even more surprising than the unanimous decision.

Originally Posted by LoboGunLeather

While this case appears to be a true 'no brainer' I am still a bit surprised at the unanimous ruling, given the known leanings of several members of the court.