Posted on 07/28/2014 3:46:08 AM PDT by right-wing agnostic
From yesterday’s United States v. Cooney (8th Cir. July 22, 2014):
As a convicted felon, [Larry] Cooney is prohibited from possessing firearms. In 2011, Cooney lived in a duplex with his fifty-year-old brother Warren Cooney (Warren) and his brother’s family. Warren had a long history of health problems, including two heart attacks.
On October 27, 2011, Warren and nineteen-year-old Dwight Avance began to argue in the Cooney duplex. As the argument escalated and became physical, the two men took the fight outside, while Cooney remained within the residence. Once outside, Warren and Avance wrestled on muddy ground, near which several loose bricks were lying. Several onlookers had gathered, and some were concerned that Avance might strike Warren with one of the nearby bricks. Avance had gained the upper hand in the fight and had pinned Warren to the ground. After attempts to quell the fight proved unsuccessful, Warren’s wife, Ressie, sent an onlooker into the duplex with instructions to tell Cooney to retrieve Ressie’s gun from Warren’s bedroom and to come outside to break up the fight. Moments later, Cooney exited the duplex, carrying the gun and yelling at the men to stop fighting. The men ignored the commands, whereupon Cooney ended the fight by firing a single gunshot into the air or into the ground. Warren’s injuries from the fight consisted of a cut lip and a few scratches on his arms and hands.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The reasoning amounts to: we’ll let an otherwise rehabilitated felon out if he adheres to certain restrictions; if he won’t, then back in the slammer he goes. Otherwise we have to keep ‘em incarcerated until there is no question of social trustworthiness, which is nigh unto impossible and very costly. Yes, they’re denied basic right of self-defense - they may either accept that denial and otherwise be freed, or remain incarcerated.
Most of these posters live in rainbow and unicorn land when it comes to knowing and socializing and associating with felons, so in their fantasy, felons are mostly just railroaded gentle folk who don’t live the lifestyle.
I do not believe a felon who has never used a firearm in the commission of a crime should lose their 2A rights.
People get slapped with felonies left and right in this Country, often for doctor shopping or larceny.
Their right to defend themselves after their punishment has been served shouldn’t be on the table. IMHO
that’s so smart it’s dumb.
It’s established law. Cope.
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.