United States v. Baer (2000)

United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000), involved a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) & (k) for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (restricted person) and of a firearm with an obliterated serial number (restricted firearm).

United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000) (citing Wright, 117 F.3d at 1275).

U.S. CONST, art. 1, § 8, cl. 3; see United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 , 115 S.Ct. 1624, 1631 , 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (noting importance of jurisdictional element of statute “which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce”); § 922(k) (proscribing the possession of a firearm with obliterated serial number so long as said firearm “has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreig…

See, e.g., United States v. Price, 328 F.3d 958, 961 (7th Cir.2003); United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000); Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 710 (7th Cir.1999); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.1974). 3 .See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Kuban, 94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 24…

In United States v. Baer, we upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) *876 under the Second Amendment. 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000).

See United States v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 2001); United States v. Baur, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000).

Cf. United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000) (recognizing that “federal legislation regulating the receipt and possession of firearms by felons does not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties, including those guaranteed by the Second Amendment,” and that “the circuits have consistently upheld the constitutionality of federal weapons regulations ... absent evidence that they in any way affect the maintenance of a well regulated militia”) (quotati…

Cf. United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that “federal legislation regulating the receipt and possession of firearms by felons does not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties, including those guaranteed by the Second - 21 - Amendment,” and that “the circuits have consistently upheld the constitutionality of federal weapons regulations . . . absent evidence that they in any way affect the maintenance of a well regulated militia”…

VI, cl. 2 (“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”); United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 562 (10th Cir. 2000) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) violated his right to bear arms under the Utah Constitution “because under the Supremacy …

VI, cl. 2 (“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in 41 Pursuance thereof . . . , shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”); United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769, 772 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that state constitutional provisions cannot override federal law), overruled on other grounds by Koch v. Village of Hartland, 43 F.4th 747 (7th Cir. 2022); United …

VI, cl. 2 (“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in 41 Pursuance thereof . . . , shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”); United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769, 772 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that state constitutional provisions cannot override federal law), overruled on other grounds by Koch v. Village of Hartland, 43 F.4th 747 (7th Cir. 2022); United …

Kan. 2018) (citing United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000) for the proposition that the Ninth Amendment recognizes there are unenumerated rights but does not create those rights).

Oakes, for example, rejected a claim based on the defendant’s membership in the Kansas militia, which consisted of all able-bodied men between twenty-one and forty-five. 564 F.2d at 387 ; see also Wright, 117 F.3d at 1271–74 (similar); Hale, 978 F.2d at 1020 (similar); Warin, 530 F.2d at 105, 106, 108 (similar). 29 See, e.g., United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000); Gillespie, 185 F.3d at 710– 11; Marchese v. California, 545 F.2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1976); U…

See, e.g., United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that the felon-in-possession statute does not violate the Second Amendment "absent evidence that [the firearms in question] in any way affect the maintenance of a well regulated militia"); see generally David B.

See United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 563 (10th Cir.2000); Flower, 29 F.3d at 536 .

VI, cl. 2; see also United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 562 (10th Cir.2000).

See United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 563 (10th Cir.2000); United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 473 (9th Cir.1999).

United States v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302, 1306-07 (10th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000) (concluding defendant’s § 922(g)(1) conviction (felon-in-possession of a firearm) did not violate the Second Amendment).

To reject the AUSA’s representation is not only to ignore “the presumption of regularity” recognized in Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464 , 116 S.Ct. 1480 , but to disregard the AUSA’s duty as an attorney. “[Attorneys are officers of the court, and when they address the judge solemnly upon a matter before the court, their declarations are virtually made under oath.” Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 486 , 98 S.Ct. 1173 , 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted); s…

See United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1)).

See United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000) (rejecting the defendant’s contention that the federal firearms statutes violate the Ninth Amendment): United States v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394, 404 (6th Cir.2000) (concluding that “the Tenth Amendment ... is not violated by a federal statute that outlaws a felon’s possession of firearms” because “the statute is not directed at states as such, but at individual behavior”).

See United States v. Henry, 288 F.3d 657, 663 (5th Cir.2002) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(8)); United States v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394, 403-04 (6th Cir.2000) (same); see also United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561 (10th Cir.2001) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by convicted felons).

We held that “a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state’s ability to maintain a well-regulated militia.” Id. at 1165 ; see also United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000) (stating that “the circuits have consistently upheld the constitutionality of federal weapons regulations like section 922(g) absent evidence that they in any way affect the maintenance of a well regulated militia”).

See United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000) (Second Amendment); United States v. Wilks, 58 F.3d 1518, 1521 (10th Cir.1995) (Commerce Clause).

See United States v. Baer , 235 F.3d 561 , 564 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that the Ninth Amendment does not create an unenumerated constitutional right to bear firearms separate from the Second Amendment).

VI, cl. 2; see also United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 562 (10th Cir.2000).

See, e.g., United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir.2000) (recognizing that "[t]he circuits have uniformly rejected the argument that the Ninth Amendment encompasses 'an unenumerated, fundamental, individual right to bear firearms’ ”) (citations omitted); United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265, 1275 (11th Cir.1997) (rejecting defendant’s argument that the criminalization of his possession of firearms and pipe bombs "violates his right to privacy and an unenumerated…

See United States v. Baer, 235 F.3d 561 , 563 n. 6 (10th Cir.2000).