Posted on 02/24/2023 3:52:29 AM PST by marktwain
In 1994, Bryan David Range made a serious error. He co-signed on a form requesting food stamps. The form claimed that he and his wife of the time were not making quite as much as he was from his job mowing lawns. On August 8, 1995, he acknowledged the mistake as his responsibility, plead guilty in a plea deal to a misdemeanor, and paid a fine of $100, $288.29 in costs, and paid back $2,458 in restitution to the state. From the appeal:
Range’s then-wife prepared an application for public assistance, which she and Range both signed.The application did not fully report Range’s income. Range does not recall reviewing the application, but he accepted responsibility for signing it and acknowledged that it was wrong for him to receive additional food stamps without having fully disclosed his income.
Three years later, Range attempted to purchase a firearm. He was denied, but he could not determine why he was denied. He talked to the person in the gun store. The clerk said it must be a mistake in the system. Later, his wife purchased a rifle for him to go deer hunting. Eventually Range learned he was a prohibited possessor because of the misdemeanor conviction form 1995. In 2020, he filed a lawsuit, presumably with the help of the Second Amendment Foundation, challenging the constitutionality of the ban on his ability to exercise his Second Amendment rights. Alan Gura and Michael P. Gottlieb are representing Bryan David Range. The case was filed as Range v Barr on July 15, 2020.
Summary judgement for the federal government was granted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 30, 2021.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The theory put forward in support of Bryan David Range is the Second Amendment protects fundamental rights belonging to all the people. It may only be abrogated for people shown to be dangerous and capable of violent acts in a court of law. Bryan David Range should have the ban against him removed, because he has never demonstrated he is a dangerous, violent person. Call it the “dangerous person” theory.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, it doesn’t matter at all whether a person commits a violent or non-violent crime, or whether the crime is a felony or a misdemeanor.
Anyone who is legally allowed to vote should be allowed to own a firearm — period. It’s that simple. When convicted felons who serve their sentences walk out of prison have constitutional protections under the First Amendment, so there’s no reason why they shouldn’t have the same protection under the Second.
Exactly. Anything less than what you described is infringement.
Egad, I wish people would get this correct. There are no rights to exercise or are enumerated in the 2nd amendment. It only states what the government may NOT do with regard to arms. Whether the government violated his constitutionally protected rights, or not, is the issue here.
Anyone who cannot be trusted to be armed should not be running around loose anyway.
What about red flag laws?
All it takes is the accusation that someone may be dangerous, and all weapons will be confiscated.
So, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not exist?
They are explicitly mentioned in the rather short Second Amendment.
To hell with red flag laws. Most unconstitutional thing ever dreamed up by the lefties and won’t be in place forever.
Until I can go to Walmart and buy an M60 or an M134 minigun out of a vending machine with no papers and no questions asked, our 2A is infringed. Period.
A pretty nonsensical comment. Egad.
Yes. it does. As the Declaration of Independence states; "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The second amendment does not confer any rights to We The People. It only restricts governments from infringing on our God given rights. And, in its brevity, is very clear.
On that point, we are agreed. Most assuredly so.
By all means...elucidate. Or at least, specify.
2A enumerates the right to keep and bear arms and guarantees the exercise of same shall not be infringed.
Correct. It mentions that right and guarantees its exercise but does not grant it. That was my point. It clearly states that this pre-existing right shall not be infringed. The phrase, “Congress shall make no law” appears frequently in the document, which has the same intent.
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.