A rare Second Amendment exemption from federal ban on felons possessing guns

[Cnon]

This from the Wash Post.


From the article:

North Carolina state court decisions have actually set aside particular claimants’ state-law gun disabilities, under the North Carolina Constitution’s right to bear arms provision. Britt v. State, 681 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 2009) (holding that a nonviolent felon whose crime was long in the past regained his state constitutional right to keep and bear arms); Baysden v. State, 718 S.E.2d 699 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (same). But Thursday’s Binderup v. Holder (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2014) is, to my knowledge, the first federal court decision to actually set aside such a gun disability on Second Amendment grounds.

More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-from-federal-ban-on-felons-possessing-guns/


For debate. was the court right?


I say Oh Yeah.


Cnon

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

Good for us! (I think?)

Keep in mind, I'm a 14 year old, but from what I read, it means that someone who has committed a nonviolent felony several years ago can regain their right to bear arms? If this is so, this is how it should be been all along.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Life is certainly a lot simpler for people who don't committ felonies.

Want to serve in the military? Not a chance.
Public sector career? Never happen.
Run for office? Not likely.
Work in a bank? Forget it.
Scholarship? Unlikely.
Business loan? High risk.

The list is long, lots more than just voting and pistol permits.

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

I agree, kilamanjaro.

Would be a lot simpler just to stay out of trouble in the first place.

 

[Cnon]

Killmajaro said: Life is certainly a lot simpler for people who don't committ felonies.

Want to serve in the military? Not a chance.
Public sector career? Never happen.
Run for office? Not likely.
Work in a bank? Forget it.
Scholarship? Unlikely.
Business loan? High risk.

Wow, a felony can really limit your life.


Cnon

 

[Aguila Blanca]

For debate. was the court right?

Absolutely.

First, that whole "presumptively lawful" bit from Heller is widely misunderstood, and widely mis-applied by subsequent courts. It does NOT mean that the Supreme Court ruled that all such laws are automatically lawful. What it said is, in effect, "Those laws aren't what we're discussing today, so for now we'll assume they are lawful and we'll leave questions about them for another day."

Second, there's the question of "longstanding" prohibitions. What constitutes "longstanding"? Ten years? Fifty years? One hundred years? In the 1800s, at least out west in the then-frontier states, it was common for felons just released from prison to buy guns. EVERYONE carried guns. I don't know if the laws at that time prohibited the practice and it just wasn't enforced in some parts of the country, or if the blanket prohibition is of recent origin. If the latter, how can it be "longstanding" if it hasn't been on the books for all that long?

Why should non-violent ex-felons be denied the right to self defense? It doesn't make sense. Example: A number of years ago a young woman who was a teller in my branch bank was convicted of embezzlement -- skimming from her drawer. This was a completely non-violent crime, one might almost argue that it was "victimless," since the only real victim was either the bank or the FDIC. She was, at the time, in her early to mid-twenties (my guess), and a somewhat quiet, mousy type of person. Yes -- she stole. Yes, she committed a felony offense. But ... was she a danger to society? Twenty years later, IS she a danger to society?

The problem with one-size-fits-all solutions is that there are no one-size-fits-all problems.

 

[guruatbol]

I am not advocating felons get guns, but there are still parts of this country where some people including some felons need to provide food by hunting.

How in the world are these people supposed to do that when in most states it is illegal for felons to posses firearms, knives, bows, and crossbows?

Just food for thought.

Maybe I'm getting weak in my old age and retirement. These guys will never be able to clean up their acts if they can't work, and therefore can't provide for their families.

Keep in mind I am retired LEO and 10 years ago I would have said too bad for them, they made their bed now lay in it!

Mel

 

[2ndsojourn]

IMHO, people need to consider ALL the effects of their crime before committing them. Right now, the way the laws are written, you lose certain rights if convicted of certain crimes. Are some of the effects excessive? Maybe.

But also consider this. For most of us, conviction of a felony would probably be the end of our current job, if not the end of our career. You may be financially ruined. Get sent to jail?...Probably the end of your marriage, loss of your house and any other assets or anything of value. Including some family relationships, like your kids. Is this excessive too? Maybe.

But it is what it is.

 

[musher]

I don't know if the laws at that time prohibited the practice and it just wasn't enforced in some parts of the country, or if the blanket prohibition is of recent origin.

For what it's worth I believe the first federal prohibition on ownership/possession of firearms by felons was the 1968 gun control act.

Don't know the history of state and local laws.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

For what it's worth I believe the first federal prohibition on ownership/possession of firearms by felons was the 1968 gun control act.

Okay. If that's correct, we'd be talking 46 years out of a national history spanning 238 years, and a legal system primarily derived from English common law extending several centuries beyond that.

I don't consider that to be "longstanding."

 

[torbjork]

IMHO, people need to consider ALL the effects of their crime before committing them.

The kind of people who consider all the effects of their crimes before committing them aren't too concerned about such things as laws prohibiting them from doing what they want in the first place...

Generally speaking, I can't see what is gained by reducing people to a perpetual status of non-citizens. Sure, we don't want violent career criminals to have access to guns - but while we're at it, we might as well wish for some pink unicorns with wings, because that's just as likely to be accomplished by bans, prohibitions, and regulations.

From what I understand, the concept of who and what a "felon" is has been expanded and diluted until, to a foreigner like me at least, it makes little sense. By extension, the permanent prohibition makes equally little sense. If they're that dangerous, lock them up forever and have done with it.

 

[KyJim]

I think there is a bright line between violent and non-violent felonies. I have no problem with a non-violent convicted felon earning his/her way back to legal gun ownership. I don't think that necessarily means at the end of the sentence, however. Just because time-out is over doesn't mean I trust you with the cookie jar. You have to earn my trust.

 

[guruatbol]

One problem I have with the prevailing mind set is that when the person has finished serving his time and all parole and etc. They are discharged and IMHO they have paid the price, yet they continue to be punished.

There should be a path that they may be able to take to get back in societies good graces so to speak.

I can't believe I just said that! I am a very conservative person, really.

Mel

 

[thallub]

There is a federal system in place that allows for the restoration of felons gun rights. Years ago the US congress defunded the program after felons whose gun rights were restored committed violent crimes.

 

[JERRYS.]

if safe enough to release them back in to society, why are they not safe enough to buy a gun in a store instead of on the street corner?

writing bad checks can net a felony conviction; that's hardly in the same league as a rapist.

 

[KyJim]

if safe enough to release them back in to society, why are they not safe enough to buy a gun in a store instead of on the street corner?

Who said it was safe? It's often just too expensive for the government to keep them imprisoned. Then they go out and commit other crimes and cost the public that way.

hey are discharged and IMHO they have paid the price,

But they haven't. We've had this discussion here before. Part of the price is the loss of certain rights -- owning a gun, jury duty, etc. As I said, I'm not against non-violent felons earning those rights back but it takes more than getting out of jail to earn my trust and legally possess a gun.

 

[danfrompa]

ok

ok

 

[Aguila Blanca]

hey are discharged and IMHO they have paid the price,

But they haven't. We've had this discussion here before. Part of the price is the loss of certain rights -- owning a gun, jury duty, etc.

At least in my state, that's not a correct statement. I've read a number of the laws pertaining to guns, weapons, personal body armor, and similar. The punishment section routinely says " ... shall be punishable by a fine of ___ dollars or imprisonment for a period not to exceed ___ years, or both."

There is no mention of lifetime loss of fundamental civil (human) rights. Ergo, such loss should NOT be considered part of the price.

 

[Paul B.]

This brings up a point. A felon does his time and get out of prison. Looses civil rights, cannot get a decent job literally loses everything. How does he survive? Maybe that's a big part of the recidivism rate among ex-cons. Society apparently feel, as some do on this very site that felons should be punished forever. I don't care what anyone thinks, that ain't right. Unfortunately many people would not be comfortable working alongside a felon let alone live next door to one as I do. He's a good man who made a mistake and will pay for it till the day he dies.
Maybe there needs to be a change in people's attitudes. Probably never happen.
Paul B.

 

[tyme]

Life is certainly a lot simpler for people who don't commit felonies.

It could be argued that most of us have committed felonies. The only reason we can still have guns is that most of those felonies are not usually enforced except against people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, or against political enemies of the state (when the state goes on a fishing expedition and turns up such crimes).

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

if safe enough to release them back in to society, why are they not safe enough to buy a gun in a store instead of on the street corner?

I agree 100% with KyJim's response on this. They're not safe when they're released back into society. Even a non-violent criminal probably has an above-average risk of committing a violent crime, because prison causes radical psychological changes in most inmates that make it more difficult for them to integrate back into mainstream society, rather than rehabilitating them. And it's much worse in the case of violent criminals. To add insult to injury, society does its best to discourage re-integration. Convicted felons have trouble finding housing, and trouble finding a job.

writing bad checks can net a felony conviction; that's hardly in the same league as a rapist.

There's an argument that someone who has violated the social contract is predisposed to violate it again, particularly after the psychologically damaging experience of prison.

I'm not arguing in favor of civil rights disabilities. I simply think it's simplistic and possibly wrong to say that because someone wasn't convicted of a violent crime, they're not any more dangerous than the average non-criminal with a gun.


I think released criminals overall represent more of a danger if they have guns, but that needs to be addressed by law reform and criminal justice reforms rather than by banning such convicts from having guns. (And, unfortunately, standard Conservative/Republican law & order ideology is a major impediment to such reform.)