Voisine v. United States

The Court held that using the federal law banning unlawful drug users from possessing firearms to criminalize gun possession by habitual users, without proof of active intoxication or dangerousness, violated the Second Amendment.· AI-written

The Court considered a challenge to ATF regulations extending the Gun Control Act's "firearm," "frame," and "receiver" terms to ghost gun kits, and held the rules could not be struck down on a facial challenge because not all applications conflicted with the statute.· AI-written

The Court clarified that Title 18's definition of "violent crime" encompassed crimes of omission that result in physical force using firearms.· AI-written

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns for purposes of the NFA, vacating the ATF rule and finding that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority.

In a 5–4 decision in June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that crimes resulting from reckless conduct should not be considered as a "violent felony" for the purposes of the ACCA.

The Court held that when a person is charged with possessing a gun while prohibited from doing so under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the prosecution must prove both that the accused knew that they possessed a gun and that they knew they held the relevant status.

The court held that the term "burglary" in the Armed Career Criminal Act includes burglary of a structure or vehicle that has been adapted or is customarily used for overnight accommodation.

The Court held that if a state law defines a crime more broadly than the common understanding of that crime, a conviction under that state law cannot be used as a sentencing enhancement under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act.

The Court held a court-ordered transfer of a felon's lawfully owned firearms from government custody to a third party is not barred by §922(g) if the court is satisfied that the recipient will not give the felon control over the firearms, so that he could either use them or direct their use.

The court held that, when used by the prosecution to obtain a mandatory minimum sentence, the fact that a firearm was a machine gun is an element to be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not a sentencing factor to be proved to the judge at sentencing.

The Court held that a domestic relationship is not necessarily a defining element of the predicate offense to support a conviction for possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The court held that an person who possessed explosives "during" the commission of another crime is eligible for a mandatory 10-year sentence on top of any other sentence even if the explosives were not related to the crime they committed.

The Court was asked to rule on whether a particular statute with the phrase “carries a firearm” should be interpreted so as to be limited to carrying a firearm only on one's person or interpreted more broadly to include carrying a firearm in a vehicle.

The Court interpreted a federal statute imposing a mandatory five-year term for "using" a firearm in a drug trafficking crime, ruling that "use" means "active employment" of a firearm, not mere possession, and remanded the cases.· AI-written

The United States Supreme Court ruled that the crime of possessing an unregistered machine gun requires knowledge that the firearm is a machine gun under the National Firearms Act.

The Court held that the exchange of a gun for drugs constituted "use" of the firearm for purposes of a federal statute imposing penalties for "use" of a firearm "during and in relation to" a drug trafficking crime.

The Court held that, where two statutes criminalize the same act and those statutes have different maximum penalties, the maximum penalty of the statute the prosecutor chose to charge under applies.