Skip to comments.Does the Second Amendment protect non-violent felons?
Posted on 04/11/2012 2:23:17 PM PDT by JohnPierce
The answer, according to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, is No.
The court ruled today against Thomas Pocian, who, in 1986, was convicted of felony forgery. Subsequently, in 2008, Pocian shot two deer with a rifle borrowed from his father. After reporting the deer to the DNR, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Wisconsin Statute § 941.29. The trial court convicted Pocian and he appealed based upon both constitutional overbreadth and as-applied challenges to the statute.
(Excerpt) Read more at monachuslex.com ...
Considering the ever expanding range of crimes considered to be felonies all of us better be concerned.
As far as I’m concerned, if you aren’t in jail or prison, anyone should be allowed to carry.
This is somethign the NRA will eventually need to take on. It’s just not at the top of the list right now, imo.
Williams went so far as to state unequivocally that even an absolute ban on the possession of firearms by felons passes constitutional muster.
Says it all right there.
The question goes back to the Constitution itself. Where does it line out that someone convicted of a crime loses constitutional rights?
There is plenty of strength to both sides of the argument - if someone’s crime was non-violent - then why should it result in the loss of constitutional rights? On the other hand - one makes the decision to commit a felony - the loss of rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, should make one reflect on that decision.
Yet there is another aspect as well - someone gets caught up in something - they may not have been directly responsible, but because of the position, end up with felony charges as part of the “blow-back”... they lose firearm rights?
Some food for thought and discussion.
One of my law professors noted that in 1791, felonies MEANT something but that today more and more misdemeanors are being converted to felonies. :(
That is chilling all by itself.
Its a scam...make the laws such that we are all felons waiting to be caught and then the government can take anyone’s rights away as they see fit. What this does is negate the constitution. No longer are we endowed with unalienable rights. We are now granted our rights by a benevolent authority until such time the authority sees fit to revoke them.
See? Nice little trick, eh? THere’s more than one way to skin a cat and there’s more than one way around a constitution and there’s more than one way to enslave a citizenry.
Depending on how fast and how they charge you, you can become felon for speeding.
So, start measuring laws about guns to the provision of condoms ~ as ridiculous as that might sound, that becomes a defense ~
I see this as a non-starter issue. After a convicted felon has served their time, and ended their probation, it is very common for them to again voluntarily appear before a judge to request “rights restoration.” Under most situations they do not even need a lawyer.
And it is common and the norm that in most cases, in most states, judges will grant this request. This not only includes the right to bear arms, but the right to vote, the right to sit on a jury, and often expungement, or sealing of the records of their trial and conviction at the state level.
Expungement is the hardest to get but still commonly given to all but career criminals, those facing civil lawsuits, document or identity fraud, theft or forgery, and those whose crimes involved permanent registry, like sex offenders.
By far, the most important rights restoration, as far as ex-cons are concerned, is the restoration of gun rights. Often they are willing to forsake restoration of all these other rights, but they are very aware of the importance of self defense.
Yet many, especially violent criminals and repeat offenders, do not bother to even try rights restoration. Thus they are exposed to additional criminal charges if they do obtain a gun.
So the bottom line is that the system is set up pretty wisely, and doesn’t need a whole lot of adjustment, outside of those die-hard, anti-gun states.
Should we also take that into consideration before we speak, exercise our religious beliefs or engage in free commerce?
Today, it appears so.
It is now acceptable to take away 2nd A rights for accusations of stalkiing, midemeanor convictions, mental stability judgements etc....
How far can this go, is the 2nd A a God givien right or not?
The Goernment we supposedly authourize by our consent is taking those rigths away at an alarming rate, are they really rights or no?
Chills the soul, don't it?
A century ago this wouldn’t even have been a consideration.
A while back I found some old prison records from shortly after the civil war. Among the records were items returned to released inmates. Things like knives, clubs, rifles, and revolvers were listed.
Absolutely, with the laws the way they are going, most of the population will be felons for breaking laws comparable to J walking and be outlawed to exercise 2nd amendment rights.
You have no clue what you're talking about, you're absolutely wrong regarding 2nd A rights.
Ask Scooter Libby or Gordon Liddy (he used to joke about his wife buying guns).
Once you are convicted of a felony you are entered into a federal data base, states and feds will not grant them back.....even though they do not have the power to take them in the first place.
A horse and a $20.00 Gold Piece too!
And that is the intermediate level of scrutiny. Pre-Heller, they used rational basis review which allowed a regulation to stand if the state could articulate any rational basis for the regulation.
Heck, I wouldn’t have put Bernie Madoff in prison. I’d have put him on probation for the rest of his life and made him continue to pay restitution. Its not like he was a threat to society.
you are mistaken. Many states have a process whereby a convicted felon can have all rights restored, including the possession of firearms. The federal government recognizes the restoration, and there is a process whereby a person can notify the FBI of same, in order that they may pass the instant background check when buying a gun from a FFL.
Unfortunately for people convicted of federal felonies, such remedies do not exist at the federal level. Thus, Gordon Liddy must have his wife collect guns, he cannot.
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.