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).
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.