Posted on 04/11/2012 2:23:17 PM PDT by JohnPierce
The answer, according to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, is “No”.
The court ruled today against Thomas Pocian, who, in 1986, was convicted of felony forgery. Subsequently, in 2008, Pocian shot two deer with a rifle borrowed from his father. After reporting the deer to the DNR, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Wisconsin Statute § 941.29. The trial court convicted Pocian and he appealed based upon both constitutional overbreadth and as-applied challenges to the statute.
(Excerpt) Read more at monachuslex.com ...
Considering what his crimes were, if justice were fair, he would be POTUS for life!
In Michigan your record can be expunged but the county gun board/state police will deny the permit anyway.
Michigan concealed carry info (not all correct)
http://www.usacarry.com/michigan_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
I see this as a non-starter issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What you are not seeing is that these people must go to a judge and beg for their rights. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ABOUT.
Name one and show me the law. More importantly, show me a case whee it has been done.
Grand slam FRiend!
Constitutionally - the government has the responsibility to PROTECT and DEFEND our rights (rights are God-given).
Constitutionally - when does a person “qualify” to have rights stripped?
Further - if a felon has paid his/her complete debt to society... then why do they still not have their Constitutional rights? They still have the right to trail by a jury of their peers. What is with the selective stripping of rights?
Further - if we actually dolled out justice as it was done when our Bill of Rights was written - then a lot of those violent felons we strip 2nd Amendment rights from would be a moot point, because they would have been hanged by the neck until dead... dead men need no rights.
IF a person is such a danger to society WITH their 2nd Amendment rights in effect, then maybe they shouldn’t be IN society in the first place. A danger is a danger.
Never, except under due process.
BTW, I was agreeing with your post, was just pointing out the absurdities of the law....just to be clear ;)
NYT 11-14-2011 article entitled “Felons Finding It Easy To Regain Gun Rights” lists specific individual felons and the states they live in where they had their 2A rights restored.
LOL...did you actually READ the articlss?
I think any nonviolent felon should not lose 2A rights. Violent felons especially using weapons have shown they cannot be trusted with them.
For me it’s about the punishment fitting the crime.
Violent felon - lose 2a rights. Non-violent felon - you don’t. Punishment ought to fit the crime.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01435.htm
(asterisk(*) emphasis mine)
“In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), a conviction does not disqualify an individual from possessing firearms if the person convicted “has had civil rights restored.”
“In § 922(g)(1) cases based upon a *State* felony conviction, courts have uniformly looked to the law of the State where the conviction was obtained to determine whether the defendant’s civil rights have been restored and whether such action has nullified the conviction’s incidental prohibition on firearms possession.
“With respect to *Federal* felony convictions, the Supreme Court declared in Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994), that only Federal law can nullify the effect of the conviction through expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights. This is so, the Court ruled, even though there is no *Federal* procedure for restoring the civil rights of *Federal* felons.”
Both Scooter Libby and G. Gordon Liddy were convicted of *federal*, not state charges.
Actually it is not just rights that are denied due to felony conviction. There is a long list of things that are denied felons. Here is a list created by the ABA just to enumerate them (Just look at the table of contents and appendix 3), it is impressive. Note, pdf file:
http://www.abanet.org/cecs/internalexile.pdf
Cite a case where it has happened, you cannot, and evidently you will not.
Both Scooter Libby and G. Gordon Liddy were convicted of *federal*, not state charges.
The Constitution strictly prohibits the Government from taking away rights, the 10th prohibits the States from doing the same.
Arizona for example:
Where are Arizona’s laws about expungement and setting aside a conviction?
Arizona does not presently have an ‘expungement’ statute. The laws about setting aside a conviction are presently found in A.R.S. §§ 13-904 – 912 . A.R.S. § 13-907 permits a person convicted of a felony to request a “set aside” of a felony conviction under certain circumstances. The statutes use the term “set aside the judgment.” An application to have your conviction set aside may use the language “vacate judgment and dismiss charges.” In this situation, “setting aside a conviction,” means the same thing as “vacating judgment and dismissing the charges.”
Texas (which is automatic after 5 years, allows possession in the home):
Texas Penal Code 46.04
§ 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM. (a) A person
who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he
possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary
of the person’s release from confinement following conviction of
the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community
supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is
later; or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at
any location other than the premises at which the person lives.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
>Cite a case where it has happened, you cannot, and
> evidently you will not.
Waitasec, here. You did not ask me that question, I think you were asking cbvanb, and Brent Calvert 03969-030 cited you an article that showed such a case. But I was writing about something different.
> The Constitution strictly prohibits the Government from
> taking away rights, the 10th prohibits the States from
> doing the same.
Uh, no and no. Article 2 of the 14th Amendment was cited by the SCOTUS as rationale for the disenfranchisement of people “for participation in rebellion, *or other crime*”. While “disenfranchisement” is popularly thought of as applying solely to voting, legally it also means civil rights of citizens, and even non-citizens.
Likewise, Article 1 of the 14th Amendment, the “privileges or immunities clause”, is what authorizes federal intervention against states that *violate* the civil rights of the citizens of those states.
That is *if* there was a constitutional provision against denial of civil rights, except by indictment and trial, which there isn’t. States are just as capable of trying people for state offenses as is the federal government for federal offenses. And in either case, on felony conviction, citizens may be denied their civil rights.
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.