Felons ... Legally Owning Guns? ...
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??
0
-
quote:Originally posted by freemind
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"0 -
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?0 -
If one got drunk had an accident injured(not killed)someone they would be charged with felony DUI where I live.
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)]0 -
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 ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
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.0 -
I think most when refering to a "felon" are thinking of "hard core" "felons" ie bank robbers,murderers,rapists ect.
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.0 -
I think what the one guy was gettng at is that there are A LOT of ways one can commit a felony without an act of violence. I think he was trying to draw some definition as to what felony should be considered when 2nd Admend. rights are taken away.
"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.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mark308
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.0 -
quote:Originally posted by freemind
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.0 -
how do you figure that is collectivist thinking? if tyhe man is in jail. idealy he is in there for a good reason. i could be/probly am wrong but dont most of these murders.rapes, assults primarily happen in max security prisons with the murderers,rapists doing these to each other? so with that who gives a flying fart what these thugs do to each other. put them all in one big high walled room give everyoone a knife and let them weed each other out. lift the burden off the tax payer from A feeding these career criminals and B spending the money to "ethically" kill the ones on death row. your in prison for these ultra violent crimes you have no rights your an animal and should be dispatched as humanly as you would an animal. commiting these crimes should be considered consent to loosing your life. 0 -
Rather interesting.
I believe that the vicious animals that infest prisons ought to be put to death.
I further believe that a prisoner that is raped, murdered, or otherwise savaged while paying his debt to society out to be protected much as any other citizen...swift, sure execution for the guilty.
Washing your hands of prisoners ..allowing rape, murder, gangs, ect. to operate in prisons is a sure indictment of an extremely sick culture, and a very warped, perverted mindset.
You people just cannot come to grips with the main idea here.
Make damn sure that animals are executed;
Make damn sure that lesser criminals pay their debt to Society.
As for the Gun Controllers among us that insist somehow that prisoners are allowed weapons under the second Amendment....
BWAAHAAHAHAHHHHH..heheheh.
You think we Second Amendment supporters are as...slow....as YOU ???0 -
You people just cannot come to grips with the main idea here.
I would say, sir, that it is you that just cannot come to grips with the main idea.
The main idea is that the second ammendment reads "shall not be infringed." While pretending to advocate a position that fully embraces that, you are instead demanding the same carve outs that you criticize your opponets for seeking. You favor full gun rights except in this case, and except in that case, and so forth.
Allowing those within the crimminal justice system to carry weapons makes sense for a variety of reasons.
1. "Shall not be infringed." It's a universal statement, with no qualifications.
2. While the police, courts, and juries work hard, innocent men and women do go to jail. To place an innocent person amongst true crimminals and then to deny him access to his weapons is obscene.
3. Prisoners have rights. They are allowed access to attorneys, to telephones, to books, etc. The Constitution does not end at the jailer's gate, and the second amendment is part of the Constitution.
4. The same arguments used to deny prisoners second amendment rights are those used to deny citizens second amendment rights. "Something bad will happen," the gun grabbers say, as if a potential for harm is equivalent to actual harm being done. "A gun might be used in the commission of a crime," the gun grabbers then say, again falsely linking potential with actual. "Others have not used these rights wisely," they will finally say, making the argument that because some misuse their rights, those rights should be denied to all.
If prisoners were allowed to carry guns, the number of assaults, rapes, and murders in prison would drop greatly. Prisoners would treat each other better and those who were interested in bettering themselves would have the safety to do so.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
You people just cannot come to grips with the main idea here.
I would say, sir, that it is you that just cannot come to grips with the main idea.
The main idea is that the second ammendment reads "shall not be infringed." While pretending to advocate a position that fully embraces that, you are instead demanding the same carve outs that you criticize your opponets for seeking. You favor full gun rights except in this case, and except in that case, and so forth.
Allowing those within the crimminal justice system to carry weapons makes sense for a variety of reasons.
1. "Shall not be infringed." It's a universal statement, with no qualifications.
2. While the police, courts, and juries work hard, innocent men and women do go to jail. To place an innocent person amongst true crimminals and then to deny him access to his weapons is obscene.
3. Prisoners have rights. They are allowed access to attorneys, to telephones, to books, etc. The Constitution does not end at the jailer's gate, and the second amendment is part of the Constitution.
4. The same arguments used to deny prisoners second amendment rights are those used to deny citizens second amendment rights. "Something bad will happen," the gun grabbers say, as if a potential for harm is equivalent to actual harm being done. "A gun might be used in the commission of a crime," the gun grabbers then say, again falsely linking potential with actual. "Others have not used these rights wisely," they will finally say, making the argument that because some misuse their rights, those rights should be denied to all.
If prisoners were allowed to carry guns, the number of assaults, rapes, and murders in prison would drop greatly. Prisoners would treat each other better and those who were interested in bettering themselves would have the safety to do so.
LMAO at you.
There is NO "justice" system under what you profess.
If you are in prison for a crime that doesn't truely call for hanging, you should ONLY have limited rights, otherwise there is NO punishment and "paying" the debt to society.
You should have the following rights:
- the right to a steel cage 14 hours a day.
-the right to "hard" labor, so the prison system can be self-sufficient.
- the right to councel.
-the right to NECESSARY health/dental/mental care.
- the right to ONE nutrious meal a day.
- the right to have the snot knocked out of you if you get out of line.
PRISON isn't summer camp. Prison is a place for criminals to be reformed and PAY THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY.
Notice I didn't mention cable, books, phones, gym time, and otherwise "privilages"?
You don't get crap like like with REAL justice. Prisoners have LITTLE in the way of rights, as they gave that up upon commiting crimes.
NOW after being released and off probation, they THEN have full rights.0 -
quote: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.
$1 is too much, period.
Duckster would have us believe he is Jesus Christ, has never ever committed a crime, so if he is capable of being perfect, then everyone in society is capable. He's is going to need a prison the size of Nebraska to put all the rest of us in, because he is going to be the ONLY free man in America.
mlincoln is trying to play devil's advocate, to "expose" the generally accepted position (on this thread) as incorrect. It is very simple lincoln, you as a citizen have all constitutional rights guaranteed to you up to a point where your actions infringe on another citizen's Constitutionally guaranteed rights. At that point, you have consciously made a decision to give up certain rights, due to the fact that you tried to take someone else's. It has ALWAYS been part of the law that your rights exist UNTIL you restrict another's with your actions, then yours become restricted by the criminal justice system, for an appropriate time.
And yes, tech141 was trying to point out that some things currently felonies are not worthy of that classification. He is right.(Like hate crimes PC bullsnot, growing pot, etc) But it is part of the process of making anyone who will not conform to govt. control, a felon.0 -
mlincoln,,, IF your serious then your an idiot and have NO concept of law or rights. As a prisoner, you have NO RIGHTS except to be protected from cruel and un-usual punishment and a right to councel. Your ignorant statement that they have a right to a phone is pure fertilizer. What prisoners have are privlages. Nothing more. And they can be taken away at the whim of the staff. No books, no phone, no nothing. Even their "recreation" time can be taken. They spend their entire time in the SHOE. Isolation.
So. If that is the extent of your knowledge of the penal system, then maybe you should go read a book or maybe get a job in the field and learn something before you open mouth and insert your Nike.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 45long
mlincoln,,, IF your serious then your an idiot and have NO concept of law or rights. As a prisoner, you have NO RIGHTS except to be protected from cruel and un-usual punishment and a right to councel. Your ignorant statement that they have a right to a phone is pure fertilizer. What prisoners have are privlages. Nothing more. And they can be taken away at the whim of the staff. No books, no phone, no nothing. Even their "recreation" time can be taken. They spend their entire time in the SHOE. Isolation.
So. If that is the extent of your knowledge of the penal system, then maybe you should go read a book or maybe get a job in the field and learn something before you open mouth and insert your Nike.
Well, the article below contradicts a lot of what you say. Perhaps you'd like to read it and we can discuss.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/17.html0 -
I'm not referring to the basterdazation of the Constitution that the slip and fall lawyers have made of it I am talking about what is fact. Just because some scum bag and his equally scumbag lawyer gets some corrupt judge to say that not geting his chunky peanut butter is cruel and un-usual doesn't make it so. Nothng in your article corrected my previous post. I have several friends in the corrections service. I am in a related field. A phone and magazines is nor a right. Niether is possion of a weapon as you eluded to. Those right are lost while incarcerated and possibly beyond depending on the offense. The corrupt judges and slip and fall lawyers that have meanieized the Constitution is the main reason we have the problems we have today. And your acertions that a prisoner has the right to a firearm while in prison shows how rediculous you are. The 2nd NEVER intended that. It didn't hold true then,(1776), and it doesn't hold true now. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
47 comments