FPC Supreme Court Brief: Non-Violent Felons Have Second Amendment Rights

[Elderberry]

Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 4, 2019 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson   

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important Supreme Court brief in the case of Medina v. Barr, a Second Amendment challenge helmed by Supreme Court and appellate attorney, Alan Gura. The brief is available online at FPCLegal.org.

    “The Supreme Court has promised a historical justification for bans on felons, and we believe that we have presented compelling evidence that the Court must have been referring to the tradition of disarming dangerous and violent people,” explained FPC Director of Research and brief author, Joseph Greenlee. “Since countless non-violent felons are being denied their rights every day—including many who have been law-abiding for several decades, like Mr. Medina—we are hopeful that the Court will accept the case and clarify its intent.”

FPC was joined by amici organizations Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF), and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.

More: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/10/fpc-supreme-court-brief-non-violent-felons-have-second-amendment-rights/#axzz61UURCOPR

[PeteS in CA]

Hypothetically, this might seem OK. But given the way DAs and defense lawyers plea-bargain away violent charges to get a quick conviction and lesser consequences, this could be disastrous in real life.

[txradioguy]

Hypothetically, this might seem OK. But given the way DAs and defense lawyers plea-bargain away violent charges to get a quick conviction and lesser consequences, this could be disastrous in real life.

QFT

[sneakypete]

Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 4, 2019 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson   

 
FPC was joined by amici organizations Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF), and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).

 

Sic em!

[sneakypete]

Hypothetically, this might seem OK. But given the way DAs and defense lawyers plea-bargain away violent charges to get a quick conviction and lesser consequences, this could be disastrous in real life.

@PeterS

Not really. The truth is it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny firearms to even felons who have served their time. Right up to the early 20th century it was customary to give people their guns back when they got out of prison.

We need to return to that custom for both Constitutional reasons,and for public safety reasons. If we were to do that,you would discover that seriously dangerous felons got seriously long prison sentences with no parole. This whole "give everybody long sentences to fool the public into thinking we are doing something about time,and then give them early releases on parole to make the jobs of prison guards safer" system needs to be flushed down the damn toilet.

If someone does a serious crime and is a clear danger to the general public,WTH are we letting them out on parole,period??????

BTW,we need to bring back public hangings for the truly dangerous ones,after 1 appeal at the most. If these people are never going to get out of prison,why are we wasting public money to keep them fed,clothed,and housed for decades?

BTW,I am talking about the people that shoot up malls and who kill others at random or purposely in cold blood while committing another crime. I am NOT talking about people who do stuff like get into a bar fight and hit a guy whose head hits a curb and kills him when he falls to the ground. I am talking about the people who commit PURPOSEFUL COLD-BLOODED MURDER.

[txradioguy]

@PeterS

Not really. The truth is it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny firearms to even felons who have served their time. Right up to the early 20th century it was customary to give people their guns back when they got out of prison.

We need to return to that custom for both Constitutional reasons,and for public safety reasons. If we were to do that,you would discover that seriously dangerous felons got seriously long prison sentences with no parole. This whole "give everybody long sentences to fool the public into thinking we are doing something about time,and then give them early releases on parole to make the jobs of prison guards safer" system needs to be flushed down the damn toilet.

If someone does a serious crime and is a clear danger to the general public,WTH are we letting them out on parole,period??????

BTW,we need to bring back public hangings for the truly dangerous ones,after 1 appeal at the most. If these people are never going to get out of prison,why are we wasting public money to keep them fed,clothed,and housed for decades?

BTW,I am talking about the people that shoot up malls and who kill others at random or purposely in cold blood while committing another crime. I am NOT talking about people who do stuff like get into a bar fight and hit a guy whose head hits a curb and kills him when he falls to the ground. I am talking about the people who commit PURPOSEFUL COLD-BLOODED MURDER.

 

[mystery-ak]

Do not change the title of existing threads

[PeteS in CA]

Life, liberty, etc. can be lost with due process of law, AKA a trial and conviction. IMO, if there's an argument to be made it would be "cruel or unusual punishment" rather than 2A. IOW, for felons with a long record of law-abiding after release, a life-long loss of 2A or voting rights might be ruled significantly disproportionate, i.e. cruel/unusual. I could go with that, but not a newly released felon or one with a record of continued misdemeanors.

[PeteS in CA]

Do not change the title of existing threads

Did I manage to do something weird somehow?

[mystery-ak]

Did I manage to do something weird somehow?

It started in @sneakypete 's post

[txradioguy]

Life, liberty, etc. can be lost with due process of law, AKA a trial and conviction. IMO, if there's an argument to be made it would be "cruel or unusual punishment" rather than 2A. IOW, for felons with a long record of law-abiding after release, a life-long loss of 2A or voting rights might be ruled significantly disproportionate, i.e. cruel/unusual. I could go with that, but not a newly released felon or one with a record of continued misdemeanors.

You made an excellent point about violent felons in Liberal states having their charges dumbed down to misdameanors with no jail time.

Chicago is a perfect example of this happening...sometimes with a judge giving a wink and a nod to the bail she just set as well.

A felon is a felon whether the conviction was for a violent act or not.  This just happens to be the act they were caught arrested and charged for.

Commit the crime you have to pay the consequences that come along with it.  It's just that simple.

[Wingnut]

Hypothetically, this might seem OK. But given the way DAs and defense lawyers plea-bargain away violent charges to get a quick conviction and lesser consequences, this could be disastrous in real life.

Spot on.  The devil is always in the details.

[Elderberry]

I flubbed posting the title. By the time I saw my error and corrected the title, PeteS had already replied. I went to change the title in PeteS's reply but didn't have the power.

[PeteS in CA]

I flubbed posting the title. By the time I saw my error and corrected the title, PeteS had already replied. I went to change the title in PeteS's reply but didn't have the power.

I edited that reply's title.

[roamer_1]

Hypothetically, this might seem OK. But given the way DAs and defense lawyers plea-bargain away violent charges to get a quick conviction and lesser consequences, this could be disastrous in real life.

Yes and no - There are a ton of good ol boys out there forced to poach and commit further felony, owning firearms, all because of a wild youth that is decades gone by.
 

[sneakypete]

Do not change the title of existing threads

@mystery-ak

How did I do that?

I know I didn't do it on purpose.

My apologies to all,anyway.

[verga]

@PeterS

Not really. The truth is it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny firearms to even felons who have served their time. Right up to the early 20th century it was customary to give people their guns back when they got out of prison.

If someone does a serious crime and is a clear danger to the general public,WTH are we letting them out on parole,period??????

BTW,we need to bring back public hangings for the truly dangerous ones,after 1 appeal at the most. If these people are never going to get out of prison,why are we wasting public money to keep them fed,clothed,and housed for decades?

BTW,I am talking about the people that shoot up malls and who kill others at random or purposely in cold blood while committing another crime. I am NOT talking about people who do stuff like get into a bar fight and hit a guy whose head hits a curb and kills him when he falls to the ground. I am talking about the people who commit PURPOSEFUL COLD-BLOODED MURDER.

What about Drug dealers, pedophiles, rapists, etc.... People like that might use the guns for the poser to commit more crimes. @sneakypete

[sneakypete]

What about Drug dealers, pedophiles, rapists, etc.... People like that might use the guns for the poser to commit more crimes. @sneakypete

@verga

Other than the sexual deviants who are driven by uncontrollable compulsions,serious sentencing where a 20 year sentence MEANS 20 years with NO time off for good behavior BECAUSE GOOD  BEHAVIOR IS EXPECTED will really cut down on most of that. As for the deviants,those that are dangerous need to be locked away in either prison or mental institutions for life because those compulsions will NEVER go away.

The most important thing is to make sentencing reflect the time that will actually be served by getting rid of the "sentenced reduced for good behavior" crap. That was NEVER intended to benefit the public or make them safer,but to make prison guards safer. Screw them. If they don't like their jobs let them quit and find other jobs so that someone who needs a prison guard job can get one.

MY contention is that "truth in sentencing" by giving convicted criminals a sentence with no time off for good behavior will do more to reduce crime than any other single thing I can think of.

BTW,PLEASE note that criminals in prison will still not be able to own or possess weapons of any type. Only free men and women who have served their time will have their privileges and rights restored.

[sneakypete]

What about Drug dealers, pedophiles, rapists, etc.... People like that might use the guns for the poser to commit more crimes. @sneakypete

@verga

Nobody ever made me the judge of the world,but I will try to answer. Mere possession without threatening someone or shooting someone is no big deal. Drug dealers pretty much have to have guns around or be murdered and robbed. If they pull a gun on a cop during the raid,charge them with being a felon in possession of a firearm and threatening a police officer with a handgun,in addition to the drug charge.

With pedophiles it makes no difference what you do. If I am in charge of setting sentencing,none of those people are ever getting out of jail,gun or no gun.

Rapist,add the gun charges to the rape and other assorted charges.

Once again,take note that in NONE of those cases was the gun anything but incidental to the major felony being committed.

AND.........,and pay attention because this is the "kicker" here, no possession of a firearm charges are going to be filed in ANY of those cases because they will be dismissed as part of a plea bargain. You know that,I know that,the cops know that,and the judges know that.

Only otherwise innocent citizens who just happen to be caught in possession of a firearm with no permit is ever sentenced for mere possession of a firearm,and even then that charge gets kicked in the plea bargain.