Posted on 12/11/2017 5:27:29 AM PST by reaganaut1
Our national tug-of-war over the right to keep and bear arms has been going badly for those of us who believe that the Second Amendment protects the right of each individual to protect himself as he thinks best.
Back in 2008, Heller laid the foundation for a robust approach to the Second Amendment and in 2010, McDonald told local governments that they couldn’t disregard Heller and limit ownership of firearms however they pleased. And early last year, the Fourth Circuit’s Kolbe decision held that judges must employ strict scrutiny when they consider restrictions that state legislatures place on gun ownership. (I wrote about that case here.)
Recently, however, the anti-gun side has been gaining ground while the Supreme Court remains timidly on the sidelines.
Consider, for example, Hamilton v. Pallozzi.
In 2006, James Hamilton was living in Virginia when he purchased a computer with a stolen credit card. He was tried and convicted of that felony (three, actually)in Virginia. He served no jail time, but completed probation and paid restitution.
In 2013, the Governor of Virginia restored Hamilton’s rights to vote, hold public office and sit on juries. The following year, his firearms rights were restored under Virginia law by the Spotsylvania County circuit court. Since then, he has worked as an armed guard, firearms instructor, and for the Department of Homeland Security.
The problem is that he now resides in Maryland, which refuses to permit him to possess any firearms because of his decade-old felony conviction in Virginia. A man with no history of violence and an exemplary family life wants a firearm for protection, but the state says “No.”
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
No less than the Cato Institute has said in past years that our Supreme Court tends to uphold modern government’s statist laws, rather than strike them down.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Check kiting is a felony. Should one lose 2A rights over that? How is one related to the other?
Unless the man is out on parole and one of the conditions is “no guns” I don’t see how keeping him from his 2nd amendment rights is constitutional now that he’s a free man.
It says “shall not be infringed” not “”shall not be infringed unless...”. You can’t take away his first amendment rights either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.