Felons and Guns
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-declines-decide-felons-own-guns
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case deciding if a lifetime ban on felons owning guns violates the Second Amendment.
The court turned the case away in an unsigned order. It concerned the appeal of Ken Flick, a Georgia man who was convicted of a felony in 1987 for counterfeiting and importing cassette tapes. Under federal law, Flick is not allowed to own any firearms, a ban he disputed earlier this year before the court.
"While legislatures have wide latitude to define crimes and classify them as felonies, they are not free to cast people out from the Constitution's protection," lawyers for Flick told the Supreme Court in their petition, arguing that the federal government cannot deprive people of their Second Amendment rights.
The case attracted intense attention from gun rights groups, many of whom speculated that the court might accept the case following the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench. Barrett in 2019 wrote a dissent in an appeals court case in which the plaintiff made similar arguments as Flick.
Barrett wrote that a Wisconsin man, Rickey Kanter, who had been convicted of mail fraud and was seeking to buy a firearm, should be allowed to do so because his crime was nonviolent.
"Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment," Barrett wrote.
Regardless of how one feels about gun ownership, this is precisely the type of case that SCOTUS should grant cert to.
Not long ago, we had a discussion on whether felons should be allowed to vote.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@jolly said in Felons and Guns:
I think Roberts is doing a really crappy job...
The Supreme Court needs only four of its justices to vote yes to accept a case. You don’t need Robert’s vote on this. There must be some other issues to cause this to not be accepted by at least four SCOTUS justices.
Not knowing what those other issues might be, however, my sentiment is close to @George-K’s in that I think this is the sort of questions the SCOTUS should settle.
-
The first case involved a challenge by a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to driving while under the influence back in 2005. He had his right to purchase or own a firearm suspended permanently. We can all probably accept the claim that driving while intoxicated is an example of reckless behavior that could result in injury or death to another person. But recklessness in and of itself doesn’t really define a person as being willfully malicious and prone to intentional acts of violence. I suppose one could make the argument that a person who is reckless with an automobile might also behave irresponsibly with a loaded weapon, but that still seems like a bit of a stretch.
The other two cases are even more bizarre. One involves a woman from Pennsylvania who made a false statement on her tax returns. The other is a guy who was convicted of making and selling bootleg cassette music tapes in the 1980s and has been barred from gun ownership ever since. Where is the connection between a person trying to shave a few bucks off of their tax bill and the risk of committing a violent gun crime? We’re talking about a literal example of white-collar crime here. And bootlegging cassettes? Will Pennsylvania next permanently ban gun ownership for people convicted of jaywalking and loitering?
-
How oddly American that the thing people worry about for somebody getting convicted of a felony is that they won't be able to own guns any more
-
I think there should be some sort of definition of what sort of crime would make a person a bad bet to own a firearm. Felony assault, Burglary. Robbery. Any violent crime or actual criminal enterprise. Lying on your tax return (like that's rare!) or bootlegging songs would not meet that definition.
On the other hand, the only people this would affect is the convicted who intend to be law abiding henceforth. The people we are worried about wouldn't hesitate to get themselves a gun.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
How oddly American that the thing people worry about for somebody getting convicted of a felony is that they won't be able to own guns any more
What you are saying is it's oddly American to hold the government to the Constitution. I would disagree,
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@mik said in Felons and Guns:
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
How oddly American that the thing people worry about for somebody getting convicted of a felony is that they won't be able to own guns any more
What you are saying is it's oddly American to hold the government to the Constitution. I would disagree,
No, what I'm saying is it's odd to focus on guns.
Of all the problems that former felons have to contend with, this is a peculiar thing to worry about.
Sure, they can't get decent employment, or decent housing, they're going to struggle with potential drug problems, etc. etc. . But what we really need to ensure is that they can legally buy a firearm.
As I believe I've said before, when people want to get focused on stupid shit, one of the first things they frequently do is mention the Constitution.
-
@doctor-phibes and in some states they can't vote.
Voting and firearms are constitutionally protected, as is free speech, right of assembly, etc etc.
Though sad, the items you mention are not to be found in the constitution and perhaps other remedies can be offered for those.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in Felons and Guns:
Though sad, the items you mention are not to be found in the constitution and perhaps other remedies can be offered for those
There are few problems that can't be solved by firearms.
-
@george-k said in Felons and Guns:
@doctor-phibes and in some states they can't vote.
That, in my less than humble opinion, is flat-out wrong.
-
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
@mik said in Felons and Guns:
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
How oddly American that the thing people worry about for somebody getting convicted of a felony is that they won't be able to own guns any more
What you are saying is it's oddly American to hold the government to the Constitution. I would disagree,
No, what I'm saying is it's odd to focus on guns.
Of all the problems that former felons have to contend with, this is a peculiar thing to worry about.
Sure, they can't get decent employment, or decent housing, they're going to struggle with potential drug problems, etc. etc. . But what we really need to ensure is that they can legally buy a firearm.
As I believe I've said before, when people want to get focused on stupid shit, one of the first things they frequently do is mention the Constitution.
I consider the right to self-defense a pretty big deal. That God-given and Constitutional right must be balanced against the crime that the person has committed and his proclivity to commit a crime of violence. When you take those rights away, you are walking over pretty sacrosanct ground.
That's a BFD.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
@george-k said in Felons and Guns:
@doctor-phibes and in some states they can't vote.
That, in my less than humble opinion, is flat-out wrong.
And voting is more important than self-defense?
-
@jolly said in Felons and Guns:
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
@mik said in Felons and Guns:
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
How oddly American that the thing people worry about for somebody getting convicted of a felony is that they won't be able to own guns any more
What you are saying is it's oddly American to hold the government to the Constitution. I would disagree,
No, what I'm saying is it's odd to focus on guns.
Of all the problems that former felons have to contend with, this is a peculiar thing to worry about.
Sure, they can't get decent employment, or decent housing, they're going to struggle with potential drug problems, etc. etc. . But what we really need to ensure is that they can legally buy a firearm.
As I believe I've said before, when people want to get focused on stupid shit, one of the first things they frequently do is mention the Constitution.
I consider the right to self-defense a pretty big deal. That God-given and Constitutional right must be balanced against the crime that the person has committed and his proclivity to commit a crime of violence. When you take those rights away, you are walking over pretty sacrosanct ground.
That's a BFD.
I agree it should be heard by the SCOTUS. My opinions regarding guns are very different from yours.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525.
-
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
@jolly said in Felons and Guns:
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
@mik said in Felons and Guns:
@doctor-phibes said in Felons and Guns:
How oddly American that the thing people worry about for somebody getting convicted of a felony is that they won't be able to own guns any more
What you are saying is it's oddly American to hold the government to the Constitution. I would disagree,
No, what I'm saying is it's odd to focus on guns.
Of all the problems that former felons have to contend with, this is a peculiar thing to worry about.
Sure, they can't get decent employment, or decent housing, they're going to struggle with potential drug problems, etc. etc. . But what we really need to ensure is that they can legally buy a firearm.
As I believe I've said before, when people want to get focused on stupid shit, one of the first things they frequently do is mention the Constitution.
I consider the right to self-defense a pretty big deal. That God-given and Constitutional right must be balanced against the crime that the person has committed and his proclivity to commit a crime of violence. When you take those rights away, you are walking over pretty sacrosanct ground.
That's a BFD.
I agree it should be heard by the SCOTUS. My opinions regarding guns are very different from yours.
Probably because you don't shoot worth a damn.
