ILNews

7th Circuit offers alternatives to destroying guns

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a District judge's order that a defendant's guns be destroyed instead of returned to him, ruling that there were other alternatives than what the District Court considered.

In United States of America v. Leroy F. Miller, No. 09-2256, Leroy Miller appealed the decision to have the federal government compensate him for the 34 guns taken following his conviction of aiding and abetting the possession of firearms by a felon. Miller had asked for his guns to be returned because the government failed to timely file an order for forfeiture.

Miller can't possess his guns until his sentence is served. The District Court declined to allow a relative or friend to hold the guns for Miller because it would leave Miller in constructive possession of them. He then argued for the government to sell the weapons and give him the money, but the District Court instead ordered the guns destroyed and Miller reimbursed under the Tucker Act.

"It is hard to see how either the United States or Miller can be made better off by replacing an actual sale with litigation in which the parties will offer expert evaluations of the weapons' market value, and the Treasury will be out of pocket that amount (because destroying the guns does not produce any revenue to cover the cost of a judgment under the Tucker Act)," wrote Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook.

The District Court made that decision because it believed all other alternatives were unlawful, but the 7th Circuit saw otherwise. Miller could actually possess one of the guns because it is an antique. To solve the issue for the other guns, the Circuit judges proposed several options. The guns could be gifted to a friend or relative who would then be informed if they return the guns to Miller, they could be prosecuted for aiding and abetting unlawful possession, wrote Chief Judge Easterbrook.

The firearms could be transferred in a trust to a reliable trustee that will not return the guns to Miller unless he is legally able to possess them. The U.S. could also store the guns while Miller is unable to have them, the chief judge wrote.

"If the United States does not want to sell them for his account, then it must offer Miller some other lawful option," such as the ones listed by the Circuit Court, Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote.

The Circuit Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT