Ninth Circuit says Felon has a right to possess a firearm for self defense...

[ziggy]

Saw the story on Breitbart News. 2A trumps state law that is not based on historical tradition of this country. Wow! We will see where this goes next...

 

[OutdoorDad]

i don't think it will end in favor of the felon.
if it does, biden should walk on his charge

 

[KellyinAvon]

My first thought was, "The 9th Circus came up with this?"

Ninth Circuit Rules Some Felons Have Second Amendment Rights​

Today's U.S. v. Duarte, written by Judge Carlos Bea and joined by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, concludes that the Second Amendment protects some felons (at least after the end of their criminal sentences). The majority begins with the principle that:

[The Supreme Court's decision in] Bruen instructs us to assess all Second Amendment challenges through the dual lenses of text and history. If the Second Amendment's plain text protects the person, his arm, and his proposed course of conduct, it then becomes the Government's burden to prove that the challenged law is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

It reasons, much historical analysis later, with the view that:

A more faithful application of Bruen requires the Government to proffer Founding-era felony analogues that are "distinctly similar" to Duarte's underlying offenses and would have been punishable either with execution, with life in prison, or permanent forfeiture of the offender's estate.

And, the majority concludes, this defendant's particular past convictions—for vandalism, drug possession, evading a peace officer, and being a felon in possession of a firearm—did not qualify.

Ninth Circuit Rules Some Felons Have Second Amendment Rights

bearingarms.com

 

[DadSmith]

My first thought was, "The 9th Circus came up with this?"

Ninth Circuit Rules Some Felons Have Second Amendment Rights​

Today's U.S. v. Duarte, written by Judge Carlos Bea and joined by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, concludes that the Second Amendment protects some felons (at least after the end of their criminal sentences). The majority begins with the principle that:


It reasons, much historical analysis later, with the view that:


And, the majority concludes, this defendant's particular past convictions—for vandalism, drug possession, evading a peace officer, and being a felon in possession of a firearm—did not qualify.

Ninth Circuit Rules Some Felons Have Second Amendment Rights

bearingarms.com

Also @JAL
So as of now none violent felons can buy firearms?
Or just possess firearms?
Or it isn't that far along yet?

Is this a continuation of the same case IIRC from Illinois about a felon being allowed to own a firearm?

 

[2tonic]

i don't think it will end in favor of the felon.
if it does, biden should walk on his charge

No, Hunter's crime is lying on his 4473 (about drug use). To my knowledge, he was/is not a convicted felon.
This ruling, which may have to survive a ruling by the full contingent of 9th circuit judges, says that non-violent felons, upon completion of their sentence, may have their rights restored.
This is because our historical precedent for dealing with violent felons is to execute them, thus rendering a restoration of rights a moot point.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Forgive me on this one......

Generally speaking:
Felons can't carry guns (per the law)
Felons carry guns all the time (bc they don't care about the law)


So who's that law really helping/protecting etc.

2A says no to infringement of the right to carry guns.....

So everyone should be able to have guns....

Repeal all gun laws.

 

[Cameramonkey]

If they are so dangerous that you are afraid of them, why is that felon not still behind bars? Guns cant be kept from them, just like behind bars they can still get a shank.

If you are that worried, keep them locked up.

 

[Cameramonkey]

And for the record, I can understand the gang banger they didnt want to keep locked up. What I cant understand is the non violent offender. Jim wrote checks to himself from the boss' account and he served his time? I dont see the problem. He has a right to protect himself.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Also @JAL
So as of now none violent felons can buy firearms?
Or just possess firearms?
Or it isn't that far along yet?

Is this a continuation of the same case IIRC from Illinois about a felon being allowed to own a firearm?

The Illinois case was an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The 9th Circuit case is non-violent felons.

Big difference to me is the illegal alien shouldn't be here. With violent felons (from what I read from the 9th Circuit case) there is history and tradition for violent felons being denied 2A (could've received death sentence or life in prison) going back to the time of the BoR passing.

I've used the "U-Haul load of aluminum cans across the border to Michigan border to get the 10 cent deposit" could make you a felon example before. The "all felons lose 2A rights, GCA 68" needs to be eliminated.

There are a couple other cases concerning non-violent felons (bounced a check, food stamp fraud) regaining 2A rights in this SCOTUS session.

Getting to be more cases than I can keep straight, maybe that's a good thing.

Edit: Concerning this statement: "Big difference to me is the illegal alien shouldn't be here." Before anybody goes off the deep end on "it's ok then to beat confessions out of illegal aliens because they have no 5th Amendment right either..." well you're comparing ice cream to Tuesday in that example. 5A prohibits .gov from obtaining involuntary confessions. 4A, 6A, 8A, 14A, same-same.

 

[Wabatuckian]

As far as I can tell, in Indiana, a black powder arm is a firearm. If you want to stretch the definition, so are certain types of air rifles.

Serious violent felons cannot possess firearms, but it looks like regular ol' felons may, just so long as they're not trying to carry handguns.

To me, this is correct -- but also, violent people need to be kept locked up until such time as they're no longer violent.

Past mistakes should not prevent a person from defending himself. After all, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant those rights listed, but rather simply enumerates the natural laws and rights of all people as we know them to exist. Rationally, a person cannot forfeit rights that are inherent to his being; he may only be restricted from exercising them.

One might argue that some are not capable of exercising their rights fully or properly. In these cases, the subjects generally receive assisted living of some sort, be it in group homes or prison. It would probably be fair to disallow these folks firearms since they're incapable of proper exercise of that right.

Why would you dump a person out on the street if he's mentally incompetent to contribute to society and to exercise his rights so as to care for himself? I'd argue that we need mental health reform to the point that violent offenders will receive treatment for whatever makes them violent. This is not to say that they shouldn't be punished for their crimes. They certainly should.

They just shouldn't be released into society with the root causes of their violence unaddressed.

 

[bgcatty]

Based on all the rulings by the 9th Circuit on the 2A it looks like they are schizophrenic from time to time!

 

[STFU]

<SNIP>
Serious violent felons cannot possess firearms, but it looks like regular ol' felons may, just so long as they're not trying to carry handguns.
<SNIP>
To me, this is correct -- but also, violent people need to be kept locked up until such time as they're no longer violent.
<SNIP>
They just shouldn't be released into society with the root causes of their violence unaddressed.

I normally don't chime in on divisive topics like this but...this affects the perception for all gun owners. Including us law-abiding owners.

So I would ask: Does a leopard really change his spots?
(Me thinks not...then again I do not have much faith in people any more.)

Yes, very cynical way to look at it but...recidivism is real and the numbers show it. Especially for the violent ones.

Recidivism Among Federal Violent Offenders

(January 2019) This report is the fifth in a series of reports and provides a recidivism analysis of federal offenders who engaged in violent criminal activity.

www.ussc.gov

(Having worked at USMS for several years, I studied recidivism in depth as it related to one of our "special programs.")

IMHO: NO, convicted, violent felons (regardless of time having been served) should not be allowed to buy/possess firearms.
I also feel they should not be allowed to vote. If you "f'up" that badly, you must suffer the consequences.

 

[Tripp11]

An overwhelming and staggering number of defendants in federal criminal cases plead guilty before a case ever gets to trial. Depending on what year you look at and the data, it's as high as 98%+ of defendants plead guilty. Out of those 98%+ defendants, it's not unreasonable to believe that a very high % of those defendants are pleading guilty to a crime they did not commit.

Why? It's simple. Guilty pleas trump trials for individuals because an individual faces exponentially much higher sentences and punishment if they invoke their right to trial and lose. Faced with a choice, I know which one I would take. The federal government has unlimited resources (manpower, investigative powers, pressure, funds) to pursue a criminal investigation forever. An individual simply has little to no matching power to those resources. Even a millionaire is going to run out of funds fighting a long, drawn out federal investigation.

So, I know there are countless individuals out there who have plead guilty to a federal crime that they did not commit - just to stop the madness.

I see no reason why we should not restore gun rights to those non-violent criminals after they have served their criminal confinement sentence.

The ATF used to have an entire department who reviewed restoration of gun rights to convicted felons, but that department can't seem to find the staffing/funding for the last 20-30 years. Yet, we find money for all sorts of wasted projects on a federal level.

It's time the Supreme Court (hopefully with Justice Barrett leading the way) make an impactful decision to restore gun rights to individuals who have served their time and are no threat to the public. And this needs to be done sooner as opposed to later.

 

[chipbennett]

Wow. The 9th Circus got something 2A-related right?!?

 

[INgunowner]

Shall not be infringed.

Reading the card explains the card.

 

[Tripp11]

In the below article, an Assistant Federal Public Defender on the case said, "there are approximately 20 million Americans with prior felony convictions - many of whom have committed no violent acts".

https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/378721-9th-circuit-strikes-down-felon-s-firearm-conviction

 

[Wabatuckian]

I normally don't chime in on divisive topics like this but...this affects the perception for all gun owners. Including us law-abiding owners.

So I would ask: Does a leopard really change his spots?
(Me thinks not...then again I do not have much faith in people any more.)

Yes, very cynical way to look at it but...recidivism is real and the numbers show it. Especially for the violent ones.

Recidivism Among Federal Violent Offenders

(January 2019) This report is the fifth in a series of reports and provides a recidivism analysis of federal offenders who engaged in violent criminal activity.

www.ussc.gov

(Having worked at USMS for several years, I studied recidivism in depth as it related to one of our "special programs.")

IMHO: NO, convicted, violent felons (regardless of time having been served) should not be allowed to buy/possess firearms.
I also feel they should not be allowed to vote. If you "f'up" that badly, you must suffer the consequences.

Correct. I'm not advocating that violent felons be granted their rights to carry.

 

[jbombelli]

I know I'm an outlier here on INGO when it comes to this topic, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone that's free to walk the streets with the rest of us is free to keep and bear arms as well.

To me, the correct solution is to arm yourself and prepare yourself in case bad people come your direction, not take away the rights of those we find scary.

But I'm a purist in this regard.

 

[DadSmith]

I know I'm an outlier here on INGO when it comes to this topic, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone that's free to walk the streets with the rest of us is free to keep and bear arms as well.

To me, the correct solution is to arm yourself and prepare yourself in case bad people come your direction, not take away the rights of those we find scary.

But I'm a purist in this regard.

I agree.
If someone is to violent to be trusted with a firearm lock them up, or put them down like you do a sick animal.Things this country did before.



Hard labor, beans, rice, and water only for food, no TV, or entertainment including books that are meant for entertainment. Only books that have educational purposes. That might give incentive not to comment crime in the future.

 

[INgunowner]

the correct solution

This is the only objectively correct, morally defensible solution.

Laws defend the status quo,
The weak support a broken legal system because they are foolish enough to confuse it's intent with their own.

The strong.
The state.
The weak.
the goal is the same...

Survive another day.

It is not a "common goal."

If you can let them out,
You can trust them with a gun.
Only the weak would be foolish enough to defend a system that surrounds us with people you can't trust while stripping the rights of your fellow man. SMH