Posted on 06/06/2023 3:40:06 PM PDT by CFW
The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
The 11-4 ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest defeat for gun control laws in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.
The decision stems from a 2020 lawsuit by a Pennsylvania man, Bryan Range, who was barred under federal law from possessing a gun after pleading guilty to welfare fraud. He claimed the prohibition violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Yes, and 55 years overdue.
I agree, particularly in light of the multitude of Soros DAs now who now refuse to prosecute gun possession crimes by violent repeat felons if they belong to a certain protected demographic.
—added to banglist
Excellent news considering all the chicken shit laws the Union government can nail you on...eagle feathers, mattress tags etc.
Thanks Nick for letting me know of the previous thread. I truly searched! I did, I did! If anyone thinks I should request for a “delete” on this one and/or direct people to the other thread, please let me know. We can move the conversation to the other thread.
I’m excited to see this ruling from the 3rd. Especially at the 11/4 split. The Appeals Courts are finally getting the message that ALL rights in the Constitution are absolute and that you can’t just pick and choose which ones you will champion.
CFW
Does this mean people who use state-legal marijuana can also own guns?
“Restoring” is the correct word to use. Those of us over a certain age remember well the times when you could walk into a hardware store and purchase a shotgun or pistol without any paperwork other than the cash in your pocket. During those times, there was little need to worry about crime.
A gun in your home on the gun rack was for providing food on the table. The extra few guns in the closet or corner was just in case the “commies” ever invaded our country. Back then, most politicians had the same firearms in their homes.
Today is the 79th anniversary of D-day. How quickly we forget!
Here is the Court’s opinion should anyone want to delve into the weeds and read the actual decision of the court rather than the media’s version of their ruling.
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen.pdf
“Does this mean people who use state-legal marijuana can also own guns?”
I don’t think so. Not at the moment. However, attorneys may use this opinion to build on a case in that direction.
I’ve wondered and can’t find if Mark Fuhrman, LAPD had his rights restored to him after his perjury conviction from the OJ trial...He wasn’t allowed to even have his large knife collection after that conviction and most certainly no other weapons.
I know they’re movies, but you see in older westerns the warden hands the men their gun belts when they get released from prison.
If you want to read an excellent opinion on “the people” and their rights, go to the link of the opinion I provided above in this case and and start reading. You will be shouting “hell yeahs!” before you arrive at page 15 in this 107 page opinion.
I’m still reading, but so far I’m very pleased with the court’s conclusions.
From the opinion on this case:
“Fourth, the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” is as expansive as it is vague. Who are “law-abiding” citizens in this context? Does it exclude those who have committed summary offenses or petty misdemeanors, which typically result in a ticket and a small fine? No. We are confident that the Supreme Court’s references to “law-abiding, responsible citizens” do not mean that every American who gets a traffic ticket is no longer among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps, then, the category refers only to those who commit “real crimes” like felonies or felony-equivalents?
At English common law, felonies were so serious they were punishable by estate forfeiture and even death. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 54 (1769).
But today, felonies include a wide swath of crimes, some of which seem minor.5 And some misdemeanors seem serious.6
As the Supreme Court noted recently: “a felon is not always more dangerous than a misdemeanant.” Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2020 (2021) (cleaned up). As for the modifier “responsible,” it serves only to undermine the Government’s argument because it renders the category hopelessly vague. In our Republic of over 330 million people, Americans have widely divergent ideas about what is required for one to be considered a “responsible” citizen. “
What is a “law-abiding citizen” Hubby and I have often discussed the fact that the courts should rule that if a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm, then they are too dangerous to be allowed to walk the streets without a handler or guard to make sure they do not harm others. Other than that, they should be locked away from society.
Courts now allow murderers and rapists to be freed on bail even though they have seriously harmed others. Those same people are often caught with firearms but not taken back into custody. Exactly WHO ARE law-abiding citizens? What is that legal definition?
I’m really enjoying reading the opinion in this case.
In addition, there is this:
At root, the Government’s claim that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from “the people.” We reject that approach because such “extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.” Folajtar, 980 F.3d at 912 (Bibas, J., dissenting). And that deference would contravene Heller’s reasoning that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 554 U.S. at 636; see also Bruen,142 S. Ct. at 2131 (warning against “judicial deference to legislative interest balancing”).
Every Constitutional-supporting American citizen should be jumping for joy at the language in this opinion!
Oops. I thought I had included this paragraph in my last comment on this case. It’s so important that I’m going to post again.
“In sum, we reject the Government’s contention that only
“law-abiding, responsible citizens” are counted among “the
people” protected by the Second Amendment. Heller and its
progeny lead us to conclude that Bryan Range remains among
“the people” despite his 1995 false statement conviction. “
Yes, “felony” means so many things it really means nothing anymore.
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.