Posted on 05/10/2024 11:39:56 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
On Thursday a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that Steven Duarte, a felon, has a “right to possess a firearm for self-defense.”
Courthouse News Service noted Duarte has five felony convictions and was a member of a street gang in Los Angeles.
The decision upholding Duarte’s gun rights was split, with George W. Bush appointee Carlos Bea and Donald Trump appointee Lawrence VanDyke deciding in the majority.
Bea wrote the majority opinion, noted the panel tested the prohibition against felons possessing guns in light of Bruen (2022) and found the government did not have a sufficient substantiation.
Bruen requires that gun control align with historical tradition and the intent of America’s founders. Bea and VanDyke did not believe the blanket prohibition against felons possessing firearms survived scrutiny.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Look at it this way- he’s vastly more likely to use it to kill another gang-banger.
If we just taught marksmanship in schools, we could let the gangsters shoot each other all day; as long as no one innocent is hurt who cares?
If this strengthens the legal interpretation of “shall not be infringed” then I’m ok with it.
9th circuit, the court that contributed the most to destroying citizen trust in the judiciary and willingness to obey court orders....may finally be seeing the light!?
So far we have rulings that illegal aliens have gun rights, felons have gun rights but law abiding citizens apparently do not according to a significant number of courts. I guess the answer is to cross the border into Mexico, change my name to something Hispanic, African or moslem, and illegally enter the United States so that as an illegal I can enjoy all the Constitutional rights I was supposed to have and enjoy free medical, food, housing and cash courtesy the taxpayer.
If he has served his time, I suppose that makes sense.
If person should have the opportunity to reenter normal society.
The Ninth Circuit court has had many cases over turned due to bad decisions this needs to be another.
I don’t have a problem with this................
Of course, felons need to defend themselves when they are committing felonies.
Bookmark.
We all have a God given right to defend yourself. This should never be a crime.
The Second Amendment was written to enshrine that right and prevent Government from encroaching on that right.
If someone is dangerous, They should be locked up or adequately officially supervised.
Free men (and women) have the right to self defense.
Only if you’re a felon? Or was it feline....
The right to bear arms is in our Bill of Rights as the right to vote is not.
Even a former felon should have the right to protect his home and family. He may even have a ‘higher need’ so to speak, given the enemies he may have made in his former career.
You know. After felons get voting rights returned, why shouldn’t they get second amendment rights back. Liberals want it all. Good. Second amendment wins!
A felon can protect his home. Just not with a gun.
The whole idea of rehabilitation is for the Ex-Felon not to get into bad circumstances. The felon really shouldn’t be going to bars and Titty Joints because they can lead to trouble.
Home invasions are pretty rare for law abiding citizens. If you deal drugs out of your home it’s another matter. That is the case with most home invasions, so no sympathy here.
This is likely a just and correct interpretation of the Constitution as written. I don’t have a problem with it.
Excellent, but too late for Sean Taylor.
The key phrase is non violent.
Think of Martha Stewart or someone on an income tax issue.
They need to be able to protect themselves and their families.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.