Guns Ruling Spawns Challenges by Felons

New York Sun ^ | July 18, 2008 | MARK SHERMAN

[An Old Man]

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.

[An Old Man]

Oh Boy! It looks like everyone wants a piece of the action.

[goldstategop]

If you've done your time, then yes - you're entitled to defend yourself in your home.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Libertarianize the GOP]

This case wont go any where, but find a felon for some nonviolent property crime who has spent the last twenty years living and upstanding life and the Courts may buy the argument that felons should be allowed to exercise second amendment rights.

[goldstategop]

Either you have the right of self defense or you don't. The government can't take that away from you just because you paid your debt to society.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Tzimisce]

What scares me more is that Dems think Felons should vote...

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Several states don’t let felons who have paid their debt to society vote.

[goldstategop]

But they think they shouldn't have a guns. Don't bother explaining the contradiction in liberal logic. Because I'm not sure why they think felons should get to vote but are too irresponsible to own a gun.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[sport]

It is who the felon votes for. So long as they vote Democrat no problem. What the socialists do not want is for the to vote Republican.

[AlaskaErik]

The Heller ruling specifically stated that being a felon was an exception to the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. this will go nowhere. Just fear-mongering by the Lame Stream Media.

[An Old Man]

"Either you have the right of self defense or you don't."

I found this in an old 1700's document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Now, I ask you, do I have a right to life? If so, do I have the right to preserve my life by whatever means I so choose?

If perchance you answer in the negative to either query, I would have to consider that it is time to consider by which means we should begin the process of reorganizing the present day government.

Semper Fi
An Old Man

[AlaskaErik]

This case wont go any where, but find a felon for some nonviolent property crime who has spent the last twenty years living and upstanding life and the Courts may buy the argument that felons should be allowed to exercise second amendment rights.

Avenues for non-violent, non-drug related felons to have their firearms rights restored already exit, but it needs to be done through the proper channels.

[Don Corleone]

I thought that Convicted Felons lost their rights. Ooops, sorry. They are probably registered Democrats. /sarc

[supercat]

If the Supreme Court were to rule based upon the Constitution rather than illegitimate precedent, it would find that

1. A person may not be punished for an action using rules which are more strict than those in existence at the time of the act;
2. Disarmament as punishment for a crime is legitimate only to the extent explicitly provided for by law at the time of the offense;
3. If a jury would decline to an impose a particular punishment for a particular crime because they think it too harsh, that would suggest, prima facie, that the punishment 'cruel and unusual'; that would apply to lifetime disarmament as well as other penalties;
4. The federal government has no authority to establish its own punishments for state crimes.

State governments do have the authority to forbid firearm ownership as a condition of probation or parole, subject to the constraints that (1) a convict who would rather serve the term of his sentence behind bars than unprotected in the wild should be free to do so, with no additional punishment for that decision; and (2) a jury is aware of the terms of any probation they prescribe. The federal government could do likewise when sentencing people for things that are legitimately federal crimes.

[supercat]

Avenues for non-violent, non-drug related felons to have their firearms rights restored already exit, but it needs to be done through the proper channels.

I forget whether that issue went to the Supreme Court or merely a lower court, but the judges found that person could not appeal the denial of their petition unless or until the government actually denied it. If the government simply refused to act upon the petition at all, such refusal could not be appealed.

I've sometimes wondered what would happen if someone in the office that's supposed to handle those petitions got a custom rubber stamp and returned them with an "ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY DENIED" stamp. I wonder what the government's reaction to that would have been?

[calex59]

These guys are so full of it. This is just another attempt by the dems to try to denigrate the Heller ruling. The majority opinion clearly stated that any laws regarding felons were still in place and the ruling didn’t apply to felons. Guess these guys can’t read and neither can some FReepers judging by the comments I see here.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Avenues for non-violent, non-drug related felons to have their firearms rights restored already exit, but it needs to be done through the proper channels.

True but some states make it extremely difficult or wont let it happen. If the second amendment is an individual right then the appropriate fully redeemed defendant will have the courts restore his second amendment rights even if the state where he resides objects.

[Eagle Eye]

If felons lost rights permanently then there would be no way to pay their debt to society, would there?

[clee1]

If a felon is not safe enough with a gun, s/he is not safe enough to walk the streets.

[Little Ray]

No, you are not. By committing a crime, you have forfeited all trust. Earn it back and then you can bear arms. Not before.

[Eagle Eye]

So serving the sentence, paying fines and restitution isn’t enough for you?

If a person fulfills their court obligations what more do YOU insist that they do?

[EGPWS]

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Mr. Newsom said when the suit was filed a day after the Supreme Court ruled on Washington's handgun ban.

Typical liberal personal freedom statement.

I own my property thank you newsom.

[Little Ray]

Not commit any more crimes for a period of YEARS or otherwise prove they’re trustworthy.

[Eagle Eye]

So in addition to paying restitution, fines, serving their entire sentence, you would have them on additional indefinite probation?

It seems that in reality you do not want anyone to ever pay their debt to society.

Wouldn’t it be more honest just to admit that?

[Little Ray]

No problems - the recidivism rate for “graduates” of our penal system is so high that I have no problems putting them on “indefinite probation.” I would have a uniform mechanism for officially restoring their full rights - but it wouldn’t be easy.

Prison does not pay a felon’s “debt to society.” It is punishment (or, in the minds of the deluded, “rehabilitation”) for their crime. Completing their punishment does not pay the criminal’s debt to society or prove they are ready for the full trust of their fellow man, anymore than child completing their timeout does.

[an amused spectator]

The problem with many of the "law and order" Freepers is that they don't understand that the government(s), federal, state, and local, have been busy felonizing nearly everything.

In the end, if everyone is a "felon", then no one can have guns! Pretty convenient, neh?

The Over-Criminalization of Social and Economic Conduct - BTW, the article is over 5 years old, and the governments have been busy, very busy, very very busy.

They think of everything in them legislature backrooms...

OTOH, real felons, like Bill Clinton, conveniently go unprosecuted. Nifty, eh?

[Eagle Eye]

IMO our modern judicial and penal systems are such a perversion of the original intents that repairs are impossible without wholesale overhaul of the systems and fixes only put bandaids on problems while creating new ones.

Of course the idea that once convicted a person is always being punished for the rest of their lives is a sure way to ensure that we create a class of people who are, at best, second class citizens and but mostly total outcasts from society with no hope of re-entering.

The Constitution provides rights for accused and convicted so the idea that criminals forfeit rights is absurd.

Promulgating that idea continues to pervert the system.

[Little Ray]

Good point, but that is a different issue, separate from the rights of an ex-convict.

[Little Ray]

I don’t have a problem with the concept of “second class citizens” as long as there is a fair and honorable means for them to earn (or re-earn) the full rights of citizenship.
Personally, I think the idea that just surviving to get born (or getting out of prison) entitles you to vote when you reach 18 years of age is absurd.

[an amused spectator]

Good point, but that is a different issue, separate from the rights of an ex-convict.

Actually, no. If the government is creating "felons" out of thin air, then the question arises abhout which ex-convicts are REALLY ex-convicts.

I believe that the government is playing the same game with crime that they're playing with education.

Who can be against educating children? And who can be against jailing "criminals"?

In my state, the incarceration rate is much higher than the national average. The corrections system consumes 20% of the state budget, but I don't feel any safer than someone in the next state.

What's up with that, eh?

[Little Ray]

IF the gub’mint is creating felons out of thin air (and it is...), the question is what do to change the policy of creating felons; its not about restoring the “rights” of convicts (except for those convicted under absurd and unjust laws... who should have their entire conviction removed!).

It is like saying “I’m against the death penalty because it MIGHT cause the death of a innocent person.” In my case, I’m against the process that convicts an innocent - I don’t have a bit of a problem with the death penalty.

[Eagle Eye]

If you don’t like it that people have the right to vote at 18 then do something to change it.

Those are the rules (Constitutions) and I support them.

I don’t see anything in the rules that prevent someone from from owning a gun or voting after completion of their court obligations after a conviction.

And I personally thing that a convict who serves his time may have more qualifications that an 18 year old who merely survive 18 years.

But then, I’d allow those under 21 who have served honorably in uniform to own firearms etc under age of 21.

[Gilbo_3]

Avenues for non-violent, non-drug related felons to have their firearms rights restored already exit

why should they be deprived of self defense in the first place ???

If a felon is too unstable to be allowed arms [lke a piece o paper will prevent it anyhow] why in the hell is he allowed to walk the same streets as my family ???

LFOD...