Skip to comments.Court: Criminal Record May Not Prevent Gun Ownership (Lautenberg Amendment)
Posted on 11/22/2009 10:06:10 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a Wisconsin man barred from owning firearms because of his criminal record, ruling the lifetime prohibition may violate Americans' Second Amendment rights and calling into question the future of a 13-year old gun control law.
In a 3-0 decision on Wednesday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a trial judge to take a second look at the evidence that a 1996 federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is constitutional in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that emphasized "the individual right to possess and carry weapons."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
No one should lose their 2nd Amendment rights over a misdemeanor...
mark 4 later
Let everyone be armed. Then it wont matter if you have a criminal record. Only an idiot would use a gun in such a society when the chance is very high that a criminal would not live that long if he/she were intent on harming someone.
I honestly believe that everyone, including convicted felons should not be prohibited from owning or carrying weapons. But I also believe that punishments for crimes involving a weapon from brandishing to robbery to murder should be very harshly punished.
got a case number for this? I’d like to read through the opinion.
A convicted felon, having served the prison time and paid any other penalites legally imposed under due process of law, should not be further penalized by denial of his/her right to posses the means of lethal self defense, i.e., a firearm. When the felony was a “white collar” crime, involving no threat of physical violence or death against a person, such an additional penalty makes even less sense, in addition to its violation of Second
“I honestly believe that everyone, including convicted felons should not be prohibited from owning or carrying weapons.”
Exactly, and there should be no classification of weapons either.
Why differentiate between weapons? If you are a responsible owner of a small caliber handgun why can’t you be the responsible owner of an assault rifle, a large caliber sniper rifle, an RPG, a 105m howitzer, or an anti-aircraft battery?
Restricting what weapons a responsible owner can have just leaves the door wide open to make sure that the people are so woefully under-gunned that we may as well be completely unarmed if/when an oppressive regime decides that freedom is too inconvenient to be tolerated.
We the people need to be at least as well armed as the military under government control to be able to ensure freedom from tyranny, that is the essence of the 2nd amendment.
Well that is ultimately what its all about, control of the serfs, has nothing to do with our safety and well being but about control over us once the government decides they need to control us more...
The bitter clingers are feared.
The author is not CBS. He’s Declan McCullagh, and he’s right on the money with the Second Amendment.
I suggest we be careful not to go down a rabbit hole. I suggest we distinguish dangerous crimes furthered with guns (or machetes or boomerangs etc.) from largely inconsequential paperwork or status crimes. The NRA for one has not always been careful about that in its political support, so eager has it been to show the Brady influenced crowd that it hates crimes committed with guns.
Agree yet something to be said for peer pressure in changing society.
There should be no gun laws other then not being able to harm others criminally. Ownership/possession/carrying/type, etc. should not be regulated.
Really pi$$es me off when I see pictures from other countries of civilians carrying around full auto AK’S and other full auto weapons in public and the average American cannot even buy one without a ton of taxes and regulation .
The only countries I have been in where the paradigm is as you say is those where there is anarchy and absolutely no civil order. (Iraq c. 2003-2005, Afghanistan, Somalia, extreme parts of Columbia SA, Central Africa etc) aka “warring regions”
Name one where what you state is not as I describe?
Israel? Every one you see in those pictures (usually of sexy girls with M16s or Galils) is in the IDF or similar force structure, the weapons are not privately owned.
Switzerland? State owned and controlled issue of assault rifles and ammo to active members of the reserve defense forces (aka National Guard)not for private use; ammo is controlled and inspected, as are the weapons themselves-with severe penalty for “plinking” or criminal use.
Any other examples?
While I am for strict and liberal (in the true sense) interpretation of the Constitution, I think the idea and suggestion that “other countries” have more firearms freedoms is ridiculous.
An honest look at the conditions in the colonies prior to the revolution strongly suggests that large “crew-served” weapons (canon etc) were public property while every of age man was required to be armed with a firelock (musket/rifle) and accouterments personally procured and maintained. Each militia “regulated” the use thereof (practice, drill, and tactics) on a normal weekly or monthly basis. This paradigm was exercised and enforced to varying degrees.
I am of the opinion (just as valuable/damnable as yours) is that US citizens should be encouraged maybe even required to own, possess and use any small arm to include rifles, pistols, select fire ARs (of any type) and light/medium machine guns (aka M240/M60) etc.
Explosive weapons and major caliber ordnance-should have multiple access and employment controls to reduce risk etc (flame on).
Holy cow! This is huge.
Has this got legs?
If you can't trust him with a child, he belongs 6 feet under.
In both cases, the left have sought to be lenient and let both back out into society with restrictions.
All our leniency has really done is set criminals free to prey on the innocent. In the end, it is far worse than just dealing with the problem.
The left does this because 1) they think they can control the criminals and 2) it gives them an excuse for greater controls on all of us.
All I said is that it IS possible in some countries . Mostly third world, but they can do it . We should be able to do it because of the quote “ shall not be infringed “ I whole heartedly agree with your statement !
“I am of the opinion (just as valuable/damnable as yours) is that US citizens should be encouraged maybe even required to own, possess and use any small arm to include rifles, pistols, select fire ARs (of any type) and light/medium machine guns (aka M240/M60) etc.”
I REQUIRED my sons ( 26 and 30 ) buy firearms last year. I was not going to relent on that statement and they listened to dad .
I want a tank. I believe the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees me the right to own a tank. Governments may regulate how and where I drive or park my tank*, and penalize me severely if I aim and/or fire it in an unsafe or threatening manner; beyond that, I believe the only limitation on my ability to own a tank should be the fact that I just can’t afford it on my current budget.
This is not a joke.
*As with a bulldozer which I could legally own, but would be impractical in an urban setting because governments regulate how and where I could drive or park it.
Declan is an interesting guy. He used to hang out on the Cypherpunks mailing list about 10 years or so ago when I was actuve on it.
Owning firearms as you stated (FA ARs) in most countries is illegal, the images you see in the mdeia are not from “civilized” nations, or they are as I stated, issued weapons held by memeber of a military/LEO org.
Pick up an AK in Iraq, Columbia, Mexico, etc and get caught=prison or death.
Pick up two or three in Somalia and you’re just like the rest of the population, but do not expect any civil authority or control... Big diff.
You can buy pretty much anything you want here in the US, for the most part, the issue is:
1. Are you willing to violate the law (even though it may be “unconstitutional”) and risk your livihood just to “illegally” own a machine gun or RPG?
2. What would you do with “it” once you illicitly obtained “it”?
You should just do the paper work, pay the transfer tax and be on your way if yu think a MG is so important. They ain’t.
I have no issue with your efforts to insure your sons are armed-I applaud it actually. My own children are well armed as well.
I arm myself in order to prevent someone else likewise armed from abridging my rights.
The founders did not specify what “arms” were, but the common usage of the term in the era of the consitituions writing is accepted to mean “personal arms” by most scholars and experts on this topic. Offensive/defensive use is immaterial.
Complex issues- we do have laws to govern, we have some laws that usurp no doubt, but I for one would err on the side of reasonable meanings, reasonably applied. I suppose the term “arms” include an ICBM? Really. Think about it. Are there limits or are there not? The issue is to find the right meaning and application.
The real issue is the extent and reach of government and its ability to intrude....
I would like the option to switch from semi to full auto on a weapon just to be able to do it . Gonna cost a lot of $$$$$$$ to fire off those rounds. Many semi autos are really fast today. That’s why it should be no big deal if you want full auto without having to pay TAXES out the behind to own one.
Even fixed the floating firing pin on my Russian SKS so it WOULDN’T go auto on me if it stuck. Don’t want to be illegal.
Well, I see more and more people starting to understand the second.
What you wrote is my understanding also.
Thanks for this post.
Well, I see more and more people starting to understand the second.
What you wrote is my understanding also.
Thanks for this post.
YESSSSSSS! [fistpump] Lautenberg to the shitcan where he (and it) belong.
And especially if his conviction (sometimes even a plea) occurred before 1996, it's certainly not fair to impose additional disabilities upon him ex post facto.
Yeah, I served in Armoured units as well as Inf, Engr and SF, so I know what you allude to. However, I still stand on the founders original meaning and intent; I am of the opinion that historical understadning of the term “arms” is critically important in application of the 2A.
Your tank, for instance, is not able to be used to any effect by one person (cannot drive or load/fire w/o changing positions etc), hence is a crew-served weapon system, somnething to which the application of the militia act of 1792 applies- milita, organized and unorganized are individuals, well regulated in use of (small) arms, tactics and operations; with units training on crew-served systems of public ownership. Let’s not try to invent something which was not meant by the writers. To do so would be as bad as the folks we are at odds with-they are attempting to do the same thing, just from a differnt ideology (everything is public, vice private).
I agree that every municipality, county, state etc should have an organized (not USARNG) element, plus unorganized rolls of all able-bodied (and able minded) volunteers) to guard the liberties of its citizens. Those who refuse service and ownership fo acceptable arms should be fined until they either participate or depart.
Many states still have militias that are not USARNG elements (which are really just part-time US Army units).
The major ordnance systems should be stored and accessible by those “UNITS”, not individuals, just as they were for decades, centuries prior to the Dick act of 1913 (IIRC the date) which created the USARNG from state organized militias.
Musters and drills should be routine for all able men (and women?)of like conscience. If we returned to this mode, we could likley do away with most if not all LE organizations, as the populace would be the true “posse commitatus” (power of the land) in lieu of government employees and the obvious alliances to the appointed offcials that pay them from the public coffers (think less taxes at every level as well). Paradigm shift of note. Then, freedom would be restored to a greater extent than possible under this current situation.
Revolutionary? Not really, this method was employed for centuries in Britain, and the colonies/states until the turn of the 20th century for the most part.
Sorry for the rambling and off-topic direction (and probable spelling errors, I hate spell check and my mind types faster than my fingers).
...but I still want one...
If you want to give someone a lifetime sentence make it specific to the crime. Breaking into a bar or getting into a drunken fight at age 19 — both of which can be felonies — shouldn’t be a lifetime sentence.
Wonder why the US military switched from cyclic full auto to burst? Not soley for logistics, but mainly for controllability and increased hit probability.
Rarely is FA an advantage with an AR. Too light a caliber in 556 for sustained effect, too heavy in a shoulder arms in 762 for controlled fire.
Suppressive fire (semi-ramdom fire in the direction of a threat) is about as effective as tossing a footbal down field randomly in the super bowl.
Sustained fire in SA is the key to successful engagements, aimed, well applied fire wins/hits.
Want supressive ability in short range situations? A 12 ga with 12-15 pellets of 00 buck from a semi/pump combat shotgun delivers more than a magazine fed AR in FA. (9 rounds times 12=108 30 cal pellets in about 2 seconds compared to 30 22 cal bullets in 2 second (at 900 rpm) yeah, range is lacking, but we are talking close quaters anyway-spraying an AR at 200 m is quite rediculous.
Don’t believe all the FA hype in the gun rags.
Bear in mind: Ships often mounted cannon, a crew-served weapon of the day, for defense at sea, and were AFAIK permitted to make port with them on deck. I understand the practice of firing a "salute" at the point of coming into port was to show the inhabitants thereof that you had cleared your weapon and meant no harm.
You have mentioned "original intent" more than once. I agree, and point out that the founders were educated men with a command of the language, who could have excepted crew-served weapons (including land- and sea-borne artillery) or any other thing whatever (in existence at the time-- small concealable stabbing knives, f'rinstance) had they wanted to...and they didn't.
I keep a Remington SPR 453 within quick reach in the bedroom loaded with 00 buckshot.
“...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
So I can obtain (and use if compelled) an ICBM since it is an “arm”?
I think that logic needs to be balanced against intent.
The “rights of man” would seem not to bear that up, as the responsibility to be harmless to innocents is as needful as right to self-defense and defense of a free state...
Tough issues to resolve, I know.
There is nothing in the constitution permitting the taking of any right as a punishment for any crime. The constitution considers all rights to be inalienable.
I was arrested in 1995 on a simple battery class 3 misdemeanor. I shoved a (drunk) woman out of my apartment that I was having a party in. She walked across the street and found a sympathetic cop. He came over with three cops and made a huge deal of it and arrested me for that charge and resisting arrest. Anyways. Never went to court. Probation and paid a fine. Well a few years later went to a gun store to buy a new pistol and three days later I was denied. FLorida Dept. of Law Enforcement had bumped it, because my ummm victim? was a female, to a domestic violence charge. I can go to my court records today and it still says charged with simple battery class 3 misdemeanor. And I still cannot buy a gun in Florida through a dealer.
No gun law has ever protected anyone, nor reduced crime. - The sole purpose of gun laws is to disarm the victims of tyranny.
I am always disappointed when someone does that to me, and try to stop myself when tempted to do it to another.
In the meantime, when presented with such a "straw man", I carefully check my premises and answer as truthfully as I can.
I do not find the prohibition of ownership of a nuclear-tipped ICBM to be Constitutional. If you can build it, or buy it, keep it on your property and use it as much within the law as you would a pistol-- or a tank--, be my guest.
Thank you, and good night.
So much for thought-provoking and persuasive dialog....
I do respect your position, but I disagree in certain aspects. Persuade me otherwise, or agree to disagree, I am reasonable and tend to offer position statements based on long thought out understanding of the facts in context.
Best Regards and Molon Labe!!!
Go along with me on the uninfringeable right of the citizen to carry anything from a concealed derringer to a thigh-mounted Desert Eagle .50AE, leaving it as much to the citizen's discretion what to carry and how as it is whether or not to wear a tie to church, and we'll get along just fine.
Expand that to any small arm, from pencil up to and including directed energy weapons when available etc and we’ll be best buds!
I’ll avoid the the tie issue completely!