Posted on 05/16/2024 5:03:43 AM PDT by marktwain
On May 9, 2024, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published a split decision vacating the conviction of Steven Duarte for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Steven Duarte, who has five prior non-violent state criminal convictions—all punishable for more than a year—was charged and convicted under § 922(g)(1) after police saw him toss a handgun out of the window of a moving car. Duarte now challenges the constitutionality of his conviction. He argues that, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society. We agree.
Judge Carlos T. Bea wrote the opinion. Judge Lawrence VanDyke concurred. Judge M. Smith, Jr. dissented.
En banc may be put on hold pending the Supreme Court decision in the Rahimi case, due in June.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Good
Then shoot em all.
If they’ve done their time, their rights shall not infringed either.
My attitude is
If they’re too dangerous to be armed,then they’re too dangerous to be loose on the streets.
Exactly.
Anyone who is legally entitled to vote should have no constraints on firearms ownership.
Of course some (many?) Freepers will disagree with me.Some might even call me bad names. That's OK...I've been called bad names before.
If a felon has the right to be armed, then under what rationale can a non felon be charged for unlicensed carry or possession?
This decision could effectively shut down California gun laws if applied rationally (which is unlikely there).
Exactly. How much of the nanny state laws stem from having a special criminal class of people loose on the streets that are wards of the state?
Not to mention that at the time the Constitution was written, most of what comprises our criminal sentencing would have been considered cruel and unusual. Specifically locking someone up in terrible conditions for long periods of time.
Good.
A gun is a tool. period.
There should be no licenses.
There should be no waiting periods.
There should not be mandatory reported serial numbers.
There should not be rules about how, when or where a person can carry, posess one.
There should not rules about how to store them.
A person that misuses one, should be prosectued.
A person that stores a gun in such a way that a child or other can access should be prosecuted/ held liable.
It’s s a tool. Treat it like a hammer, knife, rock, weed whacker, etc.
OK. Or,perhaps,wait and see what the last court to rule on the subject (SCOTUS?) says. And then the side that loses can attempt to amend the Constitution.
Revocation of constitutional rights should not be done nilly willy.
It should be a separate matter decided during sentencing with legal counsel.
Key detail.
Otherwise, if prisoners can vote, they can have guns, too. /s
Agreed in principle, but I don't believe that regaining said rights should be 'automatic': A process is merited, and some will never be restored (e.g., repeat felons).
shall not be infringed.
Um...see my #15.
who else would need the protection of the second amendment than he who deals with such dangerous colleagues. if they are so dangerous, then keep them incarcerated.
shall not be infringed is just that.
Rahimi isn’t about the gun rights of convicted non-violent felons. It is about the gun rights of people with domestic restraining orders whose gun rights were not specifically challenged in open court.
“after police saw him toss a handgun out of the window of a moving car”
Sounds like littering too.
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.