Posted on 05/16/2024 5:03:43 AM PDT by marktwain
On May 9, 2024, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published a split decision vacating the conviction of Steven Duarte for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Steven Duarte, who has five prior non-violent state criminal convictions—all punishable for more than a year—was charged and convicted under § 922(g)(1) after police saw him toss a handgun out of the window of a moving car. Duarte now challenges the constitutionality of his conviction. He argues that, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society. We agree.
Judge Carlos T. Bea wrote the opinion. Judge Lawrence VanDyke concurred. Judge M. Smith, Jr. dissented.
En banc may be put on hold pending the Supreme Court decision in the Rahimi case, due in June.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Texas said the same thing in 1878.
. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
Can’t agree with that.If you’ve been convicted of certain crimes...certain *types* of crimes...you’ve proven yourself to be a basically unreliable,untrustworthy,person and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to have firearms...or to vote. If you were,in fact,innocent of the crime you were convicted for (which surely *does* happen) appeal it and try to have the verdict overturned.
Of course some (many?) Freepers will disagree with me.Some might even call me bad names. That’s OK...I’ve been called bad names before.
____________________________________________________________
You might want to take a look at a book entitled “3 Felonies A Day”. Yep, chances are extremely high you have committed several this week but you just have not been caught yet. If you do not believe felony crimes have been “watered” down over the years, please, by all means, keep behaving accordingly.
A very long time ago, a felon was considered a very bad person. Now, a felon can be a normal Joe or Jane, but is caught up and convicted due to the extremely high number of “crimes” labeled as a felony.
By God, that is one way to take their guns, don’t ya think?
What a way to increase pay as a defense attorney or fame for a DA, as well. Just increase many crime levels to a felony and “woooooooh lah”, increase the payment needed for representation and the fame generated by “felony” convictions.
Oh I forgot, it is attornies in government who make the laws, right?
You are correct. However, many believe the Court will use the case to give direction on how to apply Second Amendment right to violent vs non-violent offenders.
Yes, Rahimi to me, is a much harder sell than Range. But, Bruen has certainly opened the door for people who have served their time for the crime to be treated as citizens with every right restored.
Without, there is certainly a “cruel and unusual punishment” argument to be had!!
I agree. It is also an insult to liberty to create a permanent underclass of people in the United States where supposedly we have equal justice under the law.
In short, if someone’s right to vote is restored then so should all of their other rights.
And if someone is so dangerous that they should never be allowed to have a firearm then they should be kept in prison until such time that they are.
“shall not be infringed.”
What is it that shall not be infringed? A right? What is a right?
That's why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Period.
Or to drive next to me on the highway. Or to shop in Walmart while I'm there. Or to attend a county fair with normal human beings.
In other words, people "convicted of certain crimes" should be imprisoned for life ... which means the whole conversation about their constitutional rights should be irrelevant.
That would seem to hold up well to constitutional scrutiny. Even better ... allow prosecutors and courts to impose limits on firearms ownership, voting, etc. as conditions of plea agreements. A defendant in a criminal case who agrees to these terms as an alternative to a lengthy incarceration has no legal grounds to challenge the constitutionality of them.
It really only involves where the particular former felon was granted early release/parole and that no-firearms possession is a part of that agreement of parole.
Show me where the 2A says that? It doesn't. Nor does it say anything about "Shall not be infringed...as long as you have a background check, or aren't mentally ill, or aren't...". Show me, please. If you can do that, I'll have a better chance at understanding your defective thinking on the subject.
Absolutely agree, especially given how minor some modern-day "felony" crimes are.
Also,do let me know when that guy who killed a dozen random people has his sentenced commuted by the governor and moves in next to you with his Glock 19 on his hip.
Just sayin'...
“Specifically locking someone up in terrible conditions for long periods of time.”
So that leaves what punishments? Execution, flogging, branding?
Pretty much. There were also fines for the wealthy and stocks for the poor.
There had been a long history of people thrown into dungeons and forgotten about by those in authority or just tortured to death.
And no one wanted to keep and take care of prisoners long term. So jail/prison was mostly just where people were kept until they were sentenced.
It wasn’t until the later that the idea of lengthy prison sentence became popular, but even then it wasn’t as much that the sentence itself was the punishment, but an opportunity over time to rehabilitate the criminal. When it was recognized that rehabilitation was usually unsuccessful until the person simply got too old to commit crime, there is your long sentences.
Of course now drug crimes are so rampant that we don’t want to build enough prisons to hold them all, so “prison” sentences are really just creating a designated criminal class walking more or less free as wards of the state.
A typical time behind bars is 1/8th of the actual sentence so a 40 year sentence is 5 years behind bars, but they are credited with time served before the trial. Then for 35 years after they are released they are parolees and can be thrown back in prison on the whim of the justice system without a trial.
They can’t vote in most places, own or handle a gun, travel out of state, or hold a lot of jobs.
I'll grant that it is there for such, but would argue that calling for that doesn't have a place in civilized society. Also why Republicans always lose, we're too civilized.
Also,do let me know when that guy who killed a dozen random people has his sentenced commuted by the governor and moves in next to you with his Glock 19 on his hip.
Doesn't bother me at all, so long as I still have the freedom to carry mine.
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.