I'm pretty ignorant of these laws but I'm curious
so I'm going to ask what might be stupid questions ....
"The only dumb question is one that is not asked."
When he was arrested was owning a gun in DC against the law?
Yes; unless it had been registered in the 1970s.
Civilian gun possession was effectively prohibited in Washington,
regardless of the 2nd Amendment of the Supreme Law of the Land.
Or was it just against the law because there were also drugs in the house?
Thay just threw that in to blacken his name.
Prosecutors like to make defendants look bad.
If the law says that if you plead guilty you're guilty,
how does that change even if the law you were convicted of is overturned?
His point is that he was convicted of a NON
-crime and government disgraced itself
by turning against its Founding Instrument, betraying
its Oath to support the Constitution.
He was calumniated by government for doing what government had a DUTY
to protect him in doing it
Its a betrayal
like the babysitter raping the baby,
because the Constitution proclaims that this right
"shall not be infringed" and government did it anyway.
The 3 judge appellate court implicitly acknowledges this scandal
and is ashamed of it.
If I'm convicted under a law, and then the law changes,
aren't I still guilty of disobeying the law at the time that the crime was committed?
An unConstitutional law is null and void;
the USSC has said so explicitly, many times.
The court that accepted his guilty plea was remiss
in failing to obay the Constitution (2nd Amendment).
The 2nd Amendment did not change; it was always intact.
The trial court enforced an aberrant
instead of enforcing defendant's Constitutional rights.
That violated the Constitution and put the court outside the law.
Or, if the punishment for breaking that law changes, does my punishment change?
It will not, if it is merely a statutory change.
In this case the defendant always had Constitutional protection.
authority over him, in violation of its Oath.
Because the trial court acted beyond its legitimate power
it had no
more authority over defendant than the Hell's Angels' Motorcycle Club, or a schoolyard bully.
This is what troubles the 3 judge appellate court.
I think it was the 1970s, when some judge here
ordered his bailiff to go across the street
and arrest a coffee vendor and bring him in to court in handcuffs,
because the judge was dissatisfied with his coffee.
That was kidnapping.
The judge was removed from office
and the bailiff was fined $80,000.
The moral of the story is:
judges are not supposed to go outside the law
(in this case, the defendant's Constitutional Rights).
I think they did that with the death penalty, didn't they?
People who were sentenced to "death" had their sentences changed to "life".
True; thay did.
I don't quite get how that works.
In effect, the 3 judge appellate court is reining in a run-away trial court.