Here's one from the department of the obvious: If you own something you can sell it. If government suddenly prohibits YOU from owning it, but most everybody else can still own it, then you can still sell it to get rid of it.
What I can't figure out is how the lower courts got this one backwards, when all nine SCOTUS members got it right.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/18/supreme-court-makes-major-gun-ruling/WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that the government can’t prevent a convicted felon who is barred from possessing firearms from trying to sell his guns after they are confiscated by authorities.
The justices sided with Tony Henderson, a former U.S. Border Patrol agent who agreed to turn over his collection of 19 firearms to the FBI as a condition of release after he was arrested and charged with distributing marijuana.
After he pleaded guilty, Henderson wanted to sell the weapons valued at more than $3,500 to a friend, or transfer them to his wife. But lower courts found that doing so would technically give Henderson possession of the weapons in violation of the law.
Prosecutors also said they were concerned that Henderson’s friend or wife might give him access to the weapons. -What they were asking for in the bolded sentence, isn't that called Prior Restraint? "We can't let you do something legal, because you might do something illegal later"
