NC Trial Court Finds 2A Protects Felons Convicted 30 Years Prior

Good... the felony prohibition is a croc anyway.

Since the Reagan years at least it has been a way for our government to take power away from certain segments of the population....

create laws that make people felons so that they become second class citizens with less rights.... voting and gun ownership just two of them.
 
I hadn't been following this one, mostly because I thought challenges to felony bans wouldn't have much chance of success. I'm glad to be proven wrong.

Felons do not lose their First Amendment right to freedom of speech or their Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney represent them in subsequent criminal cases. Laws attempting to divest them of those rights would be struck down as unconstitutional with very little debate. Our citizen’s rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution are fundamental liberty interests.

The argument is hard to...well, hard to argue with. While the court isn't articulating a standard of scrutiny, they're placing quite a burden on the state.

It should be clear that the Court is not hereby holding that the State cannot constitutionally regulate firearms possessions by felons. It may. But the Court has, and is, ruling that a felony conviction by itself does not divest felons of their fundamental constitutional rights. In order to constitutionally regulate this fundamental right under a civil regulatory scheme, the State must provide procedural due process both before the deprivation of the right and at substantially related times post-deprivation, so as to allow a review of the determination that the citizen suffering the deprivation is within the class of citizens who pose the threat addressed by the felon firearm prohibition. The citizen subject to such a deprivation must have an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence on the issue of whether he should be divested of, or continue to be divested of, that fundamental liberty interest. The present Felony Firearm Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.1 does not do this. Every citizen, regardless of prior convictions, is entitled to such due process of law. No citizen should ever be deprived of a fundamental constitutional right on any rationale without having an opportunity to be heard on that issue.
 
the Second Amendment protects the rights of previously convicted felons to own firearms under certain circumstances

By the same token, would not the 2nd Amendment retroactively protect the rights of persons convicted pre-Heller of illegal gun possession, if that possession was otherwise legal at the time of arrest, applying the narrow standards of illegal possession cited in Heller?
 
This is kind of fascinating. I never thought that a court would side with the felons on that issue. This could make a fun appeal. I've always wondered how you can justify removing a felon's right to vote and possess certain items. If you have paid your debt to society, then you have paid that debt. You should be back at square one.
 
I read the link provided. Very interesting. I think this will be one worth looking at/following.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this when it comes up:

1. Once a felon, always a felon. A zebra can not change its stripes.

2. We send people to prison to rehabilitate them, at some point they should have their rights restored to them.
 
We send people to prison to rehabilitate them, at some point they should have their rights restored to them.
Part of our problem as a society is that we spend too much time on punitive measures, and almost none on rehabilitation. I could go off for pages about how poorly we deal with substance abuse and mental illness.

I've never met anyone who I'd think was even remotely "rehabilitated" by a prison stay. If anything, it makes them harder and more resentful towards society than when they went in.

That said, if our criminal justice system really cared about rehabilitating offenders, allowing reinstatement of civil rights after a probationary period would make a great deal of sense. Especially in cases where there was a lack of malice or tangible harm.
 
I find it really hard to wrap my mind around the concept that the world is a safer place because Martha Stewart is now a prohibited person.

Not every felon is dangerous.
 
I am also of the opinion that once someone pays their debt, and completes whatever court ordered probation or restitution is required, their rights should be restored.

Honestly I have never been able to pin down or understand why someone would loose the right to vote in the first place. It kind of seams like a way to prevent someone that might disagree with the system from trying to change it by voting, those votes would add up when you consider all the people that have had the right removed.
 
The rationale I had heard (so long ago I can't even remember where) was that originally, a felony was a relatively serious crime of the type that would get you executed. Having certain rights suspended was actually a form of clemency in the sense that you could have justly been executed but instead would serve a prison term and be deprived of certain rights.

Of course, that rationale makes no sense when you have crimes like felony parking meter stuffing or selling fake maple syrup. If you limited it to the type of crimes that were considered a "felony" circa 1789, it would probably make more sense.
 
I find it really hard to wrap my mind around the concept that the world is a safer place because Martha Stewart is now a prohibited person.
Well, it makes me feel a little better ;)

Of course, that rationale makes no sense when you have crimes like felony parking meter stuffing or selling fake maple syrup.
That's my view. There's a difference between an unrepentant rapist and a guy who cut a check for his mortgage payment before the funds from his paycheck hit his bank account. At the very least, we need a way of differentiating between the two.

Of course, one possible emanation of this ruling is that a lifetime prohibition (as we have for misdemeanor domestic violence) is unconstitutional.
 
North Carolina is one of the states that restricts felon's voting rights. I wonder if this ruling would help them?
 
Back
Top