United States v. Jim Edd Baker

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that § 922(g)(8) Seventh Circuit. United States v. Wilson, 159 F.3d 280 (7th does not violate Due Process or Commerce clauses). The Cir. 1998
• holding that even if the § 922(g)(8) firearms prohibition is obscure and vague, there was no notice violation because the defendant received adequate warning on his domestic violence protection orders
• holding that the nature of the underlying state proceeding has no effect on the constitutionality of a Section 922(g)(8) prosecution, and 2 The Ninth Circuit assumes that we answered this question in United States v. Wilson, 159 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1998
• “it was not reasonable for someone [subject to a restraining order] to expect to possess dangerous weapons free from extensive regulation”
• in direct criminal appeal, court noted that accepting an ignorance-of-the-law excuse would encourage and reward indifference to the law
• the defendant received adequate notice of the requirements of 922(g)(8), because \[e]ach of the domestic violence protection orders entered against him featured a bold print warning that he could not lawfully possess firearms\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).