In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Felons ... Legally Owning Guns? ...
RogueStatesman
Member Posts: 5,760
The gun law challenges are becoming more and more frequent!
MSNBC Reports:
WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.
As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.
Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.
So far, federal judges uniformly have agreed these restrictions are unchanged by the Supreme Court's landmark interpretation of the Second Amendment.
New angle of attack
The legal attacks by Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers are separate from civil lawsuits by the National Rifle Association and others challenging handgun bans in Chicago and its suburbs as well as a total ban on guns in public housing units in San Francisco.
People on both sides of the gun control issue say they expect numerous attacks against local, state and federal laws based on the high court's 5-4 ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested, however, that many gun control measures could remain in place.
Denis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Scalia essentially was reassuring people that the laws keeping guns from felons and people with mental illness and out of government buildings and schools would withstand challenges. But Henigan said he is not surprised by felons pressing for gun-ownership rights.
"The court has cast us into uncharted waters here. There is no question about that," Henigan said.
"There is now uncertainty where there was none before," he said. "Gun laws were routinely upheld and they were considered policy issues to be decided by legislatures."
At the Justice Department, spokesman Erik Ablin said the agency's lawyers "will continue to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all federal firearms laws and will respond to particular challenges in court."
City bans most vulnerable
Cities' outright bans on handguns probably are the most vulnerable laws following the Supreme Court ruling. Many lawyers and Second Amendment experts believe that restrictions on gun ownership in public housing also will be difficult to defend.
The question for courts will be whether the government has more power when it acts as a landlord, as it does in public housing, than in general.
"I think there's a very substantial chance that these kinds of ordinances will be struck down because they are aimed at people who have shown no reason to be viewed as untrustworthy," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written about gun rights.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has said the city will defend the policy as good for public safety. "Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said when the suit was filed a day after the Supreme Court ruled on Washington's handgun ban.
In the District of Columbia, the city housing authority is considering whether its prohibition on firearms in public housing can survive the court ruling, spokeswoman Dena Michaelson said.
But Volokh and some gun rights proponents said people convicted of crimes are less likely to succeed in their challenges.
"Many felons may need self defense more than you and I, but the government has extra justification for limiting that right because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy," Volokh said.
A more plausible case for being allowed a gun might be made by someone now in his 50s or 60s who was convicted as a teenager of taking a car for a joyride, said Stephen P. Halbrook, a gun rights supporter and lawyer. "You might have a court look at that differently," Halbrook said.
The Supreme Court has a case on its calendar for the fall that could indicate whether the justices are inclined to expand their ruling.
In United States v. Hayes, the government is asking the court to reinstate a conviction for possession of a gun for someone previously convicted of a domestic violence crime. In 1994, Randy Hayes received a year of probation after pleading guilty to beating his wife.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction because the West Virginia law Hayes violated does not specifically deal with domestic violence crimes. The question for the high court, then, is a technical one: whether the law has to include domestic violence to be used in the future to prevent someone from owning guns?
Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate will be watching closely to see whether the court's D.C. decision is relevant to the Hayes case and, if so, how.
So ... How would you feel about felons legally owning guns??
MSNBC Reports:
WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.
As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.
Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.
So far, federal judges uniformly have agreed these restrictions are unchanged by the Supreme Court's landmark interpretation of the Second Amendment.
New angle of attack
The legal attacks by Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers are separate from civil lawsuits by the National Rifle Association and others challenging handgun bans in Chicago and its suburbs as well as a total ban on guns in public housing units in San Francisco.
People on both sides of the gun control issue say they expect numerous attacks against local, state and federal laws based on the high court's 5-4 ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested, however, that many gun control measures could remain in place.
Denis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Scalia essentially was reassuring people that the laws keeping guns from felons and people with mental illness and out of government buildings and schools would withstand challenges. But Henigan said he is not surprised by felons pressing for gun-ownership rights.
"The court has cast us into uncharted waters here. There is no question about that," Henigan said.
"There is now uncertainty where there was none before," he said. "Gun laws were routinely upheld and they were considered policy issues to be decided by legislatures."
At the Justice Department, spokesman Erik Ablin said the agency's lawyers "will continue to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all federal firearms laws and will respond to particular challenges in court."
City bans most vulnerable
Cities' outright bans on handguns probably are the most vulnerable laws following the Supreme Court ruling. Many lawyers and Second Amendment experts believe that restrictions on gun ownership in public housing also will be difficult to defend.
The question for courts will be whether the government has more power when it acts as a landlord, as it does in public housing, than in general.
"I think there's a very substantial chance that these kinds of ordinances will be struck down because they are aimed at people who have shown no reason to be viewed as untrustworthy," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written about gun rights.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has said the city will defend the policy as good for public safety. "Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said when the suit was filed a day after the Supreme Court ruled on Washington's handgun ban.
In the District of Columbia, the city housing authority is considering whether its prohibition on firearms in public housing can survive the court ruling, spokeswoman Dena Michaelson said.
But Volokh and some gun rights proponents said people convicted of crimes are less likely to succeed in their challenges.
"Many felons may need self defense more than you and I, but the government has extra justification for limiting that right because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy," Volokh said.
A more plausible case for being allowed a gun might be made by someone now in his 50s or 60s who was convicted as a teenager of taking a car for a joyride, said Stephen P. Halbrook, a gun rights supporter and lawyer. "You might have a court look at that differently," Halbrook said.
The Supreme Court has a case on its calendar for the fall that could indicate whether the justices are inclined to expand their ruling.
In United States v. Hayes, the government is asking the court to reinstate a conviction for possession of a gun for someone previously convicted of a domestic violence crime. In 1994, Randy Hayes received a year of probation after pleading guilty to beating his wife.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction because the West Virginia law Hayes violated does not specifically deal with domestic violence crimes. The question for the high court, then, is a technical one: whether the law has to include domestic violence to be used in the future to prevent someone from owning guns?
Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate will be watching closely to see whether the court's D.C. decision is relevant to the Hayes case and, if so, how.
So ... How would you feel about felons legally owning guns??
Comments
ANY person, free from jail and off probation, HAS A RIGHT to bear arms.
You don't loose the PRIVILAGE to drive after getting a speeding ticket do you? Even if you get a DUI, after your punishment is over, you get your PRIVILAGES restored don't you?
Deciding which of America's citizens should be prevented from exercising what is a God-given/Natural right, is an anathema to individual liberty and a clear sign of collectivism at work.
The discussion should, rather, be centered on the issue of crime and punishment for whatever specific "act" was committed.
If a person is such a danger to society that they can be debarred from firearms, then that person should not walk amongst society.
That should be the area of focus, IMO.
Just a thought.
The key is, of course, the full paying of one's debt to society which will include the time and terms of probation. No doubt we need a thorough re-vamping of the criminal justice system, but even without it, there must be a time where a felon can become an ex-felon, with full restoration of rights. Absent this future, these permanent felons are and will remain a sub-culture forced to operate outside polite society and with the inevitable (and historically proven) conditions such a sub-culture creates.
TC has advocated a 'shall return' policy whereby after a set amount of time of proper monitoring and absent any re-offense, a felon's rights are restored. This is unlike the current system where a felony can be expunged but only at great cost and to a large degree at the discretion of a judge who may or may not be having a good day.
Brad Steele
It is always heart warming to witness a man admit that he has re-thought a position.
Make no mistake...YOU brought YOUR ability to think to this party...and when a different prospective was brought to light...YOU analyzed the problem...and YOU came up with what I .. naturally .. . think is the right answer.
This puts the lie to those angrily denouncing we small band of brothers as `cultists'.
The reason I emphasize the " YOU "..is because so many will read the well reasoned arguments such as you present...and reject them OUT OF HAND.
Those people are incapable of turning off the endless loop in their brain...implanted by big business, big government, and big media.
We that post counterculture have no power save that of reason and reality to change minds...or hearts.
I second what HB stated:
Make no mistake...YOU brought YOUR ability to think to this party...and when a different prospective was brought to light...YOU analyzed the problem...and YOU came up with what I .. naturally .. . think is the right answer.
HB,lt,Don,rkba,freemind;
It's good to be back. Haven't posted in about 3 days. My PC took a giant *, and has been out of commission. Well, it's back now, so I shall resume dicussion with you all.[:D]
I shall also resume one of my favorite pastimes; playing whack-a-mole with the collectivists who lurk,and dare poke their heads up.[:D]
Welcome back, and On with the Show !!.
Glad to see you back.
Since we are on this, how would this new found freedom to felons affect the sex offenders among them, and should they be included? Personally, I feel they should be among the ones to remain in prison.
Im a restricted person. in my early 20s I pled guilty to stealing car parts. I could have gone to jail but was put on probation, a withheld judgement. after 2yrs I was given back all rights to vote and buy a gun, which I did afew times for 15yrs, because im not a convicted felon. then clinton signs abill and I loose my guns. for over 35yrs I have kept my nose clean, and I refuse to pay thousands to have my record expunged. for those that said I should have my gun rights back, thank you. now if the nra would agree...
Interesting, In Washington State you can get your record expunged for $550.
http://www.catfish1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88007
BB in SC
I'm good with keeping people with mental problems from owning guns.
I'm also good with barring people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors.
And such bans are strictly voluntary. If you don't want to lose your gun rights, don't commit these crimes and infringe upon the rights, liberties and/or property interest of others. We all make choices in life. The grown-ups take responsibility for theirs.
I'm good with keeping felons from owning guns for life. All felons.
I'm good with keeping people with mental problems from owning guns.
I'm also good with barring people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors.
And such bans are strictly voluntary. If you don't want to lose your gun rights, don't commit these crimes and infringe upon the rights, liberties and/or property interest of others. We all make choices in life. The grown-ups take responsibility for theirs.
Quite the little Tory aren't you?
I am willing to bet you don't own the first gun.
Quite the little Tory aren't you?
I am willing to bet you don't own the first gun.
Actually I've probably got more and better guns than you'll ever have.
Of course I also don't live with my parents and spend my days talking extremist smack and calling my betters names anonymously via the internet.
I actually favor gun rights for decent people and have worked hard for that cause in earlier days, but drug dealers, armed robbers, rapists and other scumbags can go to hell. Criminals are the reason that the rest of us have guns and my safety and that of my family and friends is worth more to me than any so-called "right" that a few sheltered nutters think that the criminal element should be able to enjoy.
If society keeps a felon as a felon permanently then how can they possibly ever change and be a productive part of society, they will become more and more of a criminal element and possibly recruit others to follow them.
I don't care either way. However, I doubt merry old England allows you to do as such.
quote:Of course I also don't live with my parents and spend my days talking extremist smack and calling my betters names anonymously via the internet
That the best you got Tory?
quote:I actually favor gun rights for decent people and have worked hard for that cause in earlier days,
According to WHOSE standards? Tyrant standards? Here is a hint, oh clueless Tory. You are BORN with those rights. Like it or not, EVERYONE is entitled to those rights, with execption to FEW instances.
I doubt working for the Brady types was something that could be called "working" for gun rights.
quote:but drug dealers, armed robbers, rapists and other scumbags can go to hell.
That is why there is a prison system. When they deem them safe enough to return to the population, they are again a CITIZEN. WHICH ought to have ALL rights fully restored.
quote:Criminals are the reason that the rest of us have guns
Really? The ONLY reason then? Why do we have a second amendment? Is it about armed criminals or about tyranny? So how IS England this time of year?
quote:and my safety and that of my family and friends is worth more to me than any so-called "right" that a few sheltered nutters think that the criminal element should be able to enjoy.
That is because you are not a TRUE beliver in the constitution. Every SINGLE ONE of those that fought and founded the USA was a felon. Everyone faced penalty of death. Bet if YOU had spouted off then, what you are now, they would have found YOU hanging from a tree Tory.
[;)]
I have nothing to add to free's post, for he has said it all.
Yeah, why add to crazy? I think that he really believes that it's still 1776. And it it was, he'd be a loser then too. These days I suspect that he's just another wanna-be trenchcoat mafia kid who got picked on all through school and now thinks that owning guns will somehow take away that shame. I can guarantee you that he's never served in the military or given any thought as to what he can do to actually help and support this country. Nah, to parasites like him, America just owes him stuff, and the vets like me that fought for his freedoms are suckers. He sure wouldn't do it for you or me, not in peacetime, and certainly not in time of war.
We're just supposed to believe him when he talks about how he'll suddenly grow some nads and step up "when the right time comes".
Until then, he'll hide behind his parents' computer and anonymously call his betters names.
You fought in WW11 ? Thanks for your service, then.
Your viewpoints are rather childlike...but if you hang around and read a bit, perhaps you will get up to speed in a few years.
Yeah, why add to crazy? I think that he really believes that it's still 1776. And it it was, he'd be a loser then too. These days I suspect that he's just another wanna-be trenchcoat mafia kid who got picked on all through school and now thinks that owning guns will somehow take away that shame. I can guarantee you that he's never served in the military or given any thought as to what he can do to actually help and support this country.
You certainly make alot of assumptions about an individual you most likely have never met. Evidently, you have spent no time researching previous threads.
Nah, to parasites like him, America just owes him stuff, and the vets like me that fought for his freedoms are suckers.
Tell me, sir, where did you "fight" for my freedoms? While I agree that our armed forces are the guardians of our freedom, there is a vast difference between being willing to fight for it and actually fighting for it. My assigned MOS was an 03, but in 4 years I neither served in a combat engagament nor actually "fought" for America's freedom, although I was willing to do both.
He sure wouldn't do it for you or me, not in peacetime, and certainly not in time of war.
And you know this, how?
We're just supposed to believe him when he talks about how he'll suddenly grow some nads and step up "when the right time comes".
As we are supposed to believe you when you claim to have "fought" for freedom?
Until then, he'll hide behind his parents' computer and anonymously call his betters names.
It seems you are more of an antagonist in this particular thread. Freemind has simply stated the truth about our current state of affairs, while you have only posted critical and belittling remarks of his position, and have contributed nothing of substance, unless, of course, you consider obstreperous rubbish to have value.
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
I have nothing to add to free's post, for he has said it all.
Yeah, why add to crazy? I think that he really believes that it's still 1776. And it it was, he'd be a loser then too. These days I suspect that he's just another wanna-be trenchcoat mafia kid who got picked on all through school and now thinks that owning guns will somehow take away that shame. I can guarantee you that he's never served in the military or given any thought as to what he can do to actually help and support this country. Nah, to parasites like him, America just owes him stuff, and the vets like me that fought for his freedoms are suckers. He sure wouldn't do it for you or me, not in peacetime, and certainly not in time of war.
We're just supposed to believe him when he talks about how he'll suddenly grow some nads and step up "when the right time comes".
Until then, he'll hide behind his parents' computer and anonymously call his betters names.
LMAO.
You can try to attack my character all you like. Your words cause no harm to me.
Why don't you "grow some nads" and face me. Oh, thats right, this is the internet and you are a keyboard coward.
I CURRENTLY serve my country, just not in the organized forces you speak of.
I do it for love of country, not pay, college benefits, or for something to brag about.
The way I see it is 'first time,a mistake', but 'second time, a problem' and from that point on, no right. They have shown they are 'victimizers', not victims. I side with the victims right to defend themselves, their homes and families. I do not support allowing the victimizers free, lawful access to their 'tools' to victimize others! I see this a realistic restriction![;)]
Yes, I know, any restriction is to much in many of your opinions, no need to post it!!![}:)]
DEBT PAID=RIGHTS RESTORED.
I think if someone commits a felony WITH a gun, they should NEVER again be allowed to own/touch a gun. Otherwise, if the person has paid their debt to society, they should have ALL rights reinstated. Not just be allowed to own/touch/have in possession, "PRIMITIVE" weapons.
DEBT PAID=RIGHTS RESTORED.
Fish, I ALMOST agree with that.
Rather, wouldn't you say, if a person is not safe to return to society with ALL rights intact, should they not be kept locked behind bars or perhaps hung?
There is NO real reason to release a person from prison, if they are not "safe" enough to return to society whole again.
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
I think if someone commits a felony WITH a gun, they should NEVER again be allowed to own/touch a gun. Otherwise, if the person has paid their debt to society, they should have ALL rights reinstated. Not just be allowed to own/touch/have in possession, "PRIMITIVE" weapons.
DEBT PAID=RIGHTS RESTORED.
Fish, I ALMOST agree with that.
Rather, wouldn't you say, if a person is not safe to return to society with ALL rights intact, should they not be kept locked behind bars or perhaps hung?
There is NO real reason to release a person from prison, if they are not "safe" enough to return to society whole again.
Absolutely! Any man not fit to have civil (god given)rights, should never see the light of day. That includes a multitude of crimes. Taking a life,by any means,(other than to defend ones self,or another person in immediate danger)should be mandatory minimum of DEATH.
Like you said. "If not fit to be returned to free society, not fit to ever see the light of day"
What if the felony was for posesing an ounce of Pot? What if the felony was for some OTHER exceedingly stoopid offense? What the Hell?
BAM you just lost your 2A rights!!![xx(]
And to add insult to injury lets say you owned firearms before during and after this incident. Went to court was found guilty. The state found you have had a hunting licence for several years. They come to your home with a search warrant find your firearms and BAM now your a 2 time felon for possession of firearms by a convicted felon.[:0][B)]
What if the felony was for posesing an ounce of Pot? What if the felony was for some OTHER exceedingly stoopid offense? What the Hell?
Can anybody out there in the mental health field tell me what this guy is driving at ?
quote:Hey, why not make the sentence for a felon posessing a firearm Death? Why the heck not? The criminal has already shown himself/herself to be a serious danger to society (by committing a felony), so if he/she posesses a firearm, he/she is ........
What if the felony was for posesing an ounce of Pot? What if the felony was for some OTHER exceedingly stoopid offense? What the Hell?
Can anybody out there in the mental health field tell me what this guy is driving at ?
Sorry friend, I don't speak drivel. I couldn't tell you what he is getting at either.
Soon there will be so many resrtictions no one will be allowed to own firearms. Well except the elitists...politicians,wealthy businessmen/CEOs and LEOs of course.
"Hey, why not make the sentence for a felon posessing a firearm Death? Why the heck not? The criminal has already shown himself/herself to be a serious danger to society (by committing a felony), so if he/she posesses a firearm, he/she is ........
What if the felony was for posesing an ounce of Pot? What if the felony was for some OTHER exceedingly stoopid offense? What the Hell?"
And honestly, maybe that should be looked at. Here in Calfornia, it is a misdemeaner to get caught with a concealed firearm. Nt big deal. But it is a felony to get caught with a switchblade, butterfly or other such illegal knives or billy's. And a switchblde is anything that can opened via a pushbutton or with the flick of a wrist. FELONY.
And maybe there should be a qualifier. Violent versus nonviolent.
interesting? try 1500-2000 in the state things happened in. washington doesnt mean anything, whats your point? why should I pay a bribe money for my rights? rights I had till that pos clinton and his lib friends butted in.
If you believe that our loss of gun rights started with Clinton then you have not been paying attention or helping with the gun rights fight very long. If at all.
If you ever read much of anything I post on this subject, you would know how I feel.
ANY person, free from jail and off probation, HAS A RIGHT to bear arms.
You don't loose the PRIVILAGE to drive after getting a speeding ticket do you? Even if you get a DUI, after your punishment is over, you get your PRIVILAGES restored don't you?
Hmmmmm. Does the Constitution strip a man of his freedom of speech or right to counsel while in jail or on probation? No, it does not. Do the Constitution strip a man of his freedom to read or to file appeals and motions while in jail or on probation? No, it does not.
And yet you are prefectly happy with stripping a man of his second amendment rights while in jail and while on probation.
Jails are often the most dangerous places in America. Assaults, rapes, and murders happen all the time. And yet you would deny a man placed in jail, perhaps wrongly, his second amendment rights at the same time he most needs them.
Sounds like collectivist thinking. I think you need to go back and read the second amendment. That "shall not be infringed" part seems pretty clear to me.