Posted on 08/29/2009 9:13:32 AM PDT by The Pack Knight
The N.C. Supreme Court says a 2004 law that bars convicted felons from having a gun, even in their own home or business, is unconstitutional.
The state's high court ruled Friday in the case of Barney Britt of Wake County that the General Assembly went too far five years ago when it toughened restrictions on felons owning guns as part of a broad anti-domestic-violence bill.
Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson said in a dissenting opinion that the decision could encourage challenges against state bans on felons and the insane owning guns.
Britt was convicted of felony drug possession in 1979. He completed his sentence in 1982, and his right to own a gun was restored five years later.
Britt was convicted of felony possession of marijuana, in an amount that would be a misdemeanor today. He's since gone on to become a successful and upstanding citizen. He actually found out that he was no longer allowed to own a gun when he went hunting with the Sheriff, a friend of his.
I'm glad to see this came out right.
I can’t have a handgun either. Felony drunk driving from more than a decade ago.
Hmm but it doesn’t make sense. What made that into a felony to own weed?
‘his right to own a gun was restored five years later’
Gov’t restored his ‘privilage’ apparently. Gov’t takes away what God gives.
They probably stacked multiple charges on the guy which would increase the seriousness of it overall. Something as simple as possesion gets combined with other charges like conspiracy to possess and transport.
It was a felony to possess the amount of weed he did at the time he was arrested and convicted, but it it’s a misdemeanor now.
The War on Drugs has corrupted so many of our institutions. :(
This ruling is likely to lead to a few convicted felons ending up in a federal penitentiary. The former NC statute allowed convicted felons to possess a firearm in their own homes or businesses, but nowhere else. The problem with that was the Federal statute does not allow convicted felons to possess a firearm or ammunition in any location. So, the NC SC ruling allows people to do something for which the Federal courts will slap a minimum five year prison term on the felon with a firearm.
For the record, this decision is solely based on Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina State Constitution, not the Second Amendment. That means (1) this decision can not be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and (2) this decision can not be made binding on any other State.
Well, the Second Amendment clearly states that ex-felons, and anyone else some government authority thinks shouldn't own guns, may not own guns, so that is fine.
I’ve always advocated the rights of convicted felons to have their rights restored after they are released from prison. If you cannot expect them to return to society and abide by the law, then do not release them. Any man can obtain arms if he really wants to. Gun laws, again, are only an infringement on the rights of those who will abide by them. Owning a gun or knife ,axe, hammer ,club,etc. in itself should not be a crime.
Bottom line: You cannot legislate good behavior
What I meant was that the North Carolina Supreme Court decided to base its decision on its State Constitution's RKBA provision, rather than on the Second Amendment. I wasn't claiming that denying felons, who have completed their time in prison, is consistent with the Second Amendment. Next time, read people's posts more closely.
Right, I should have added that. If I remember correctly, I don’t think Britt’s lawyers even made a 2nd Amendment argument, mainly because they made their appeal before Heller, and there still isn’t any jurisprudence that says the 2nd Amendment applies to state law. Also, the state court won’t deal with the US Constitution if it’s unnecessary to resolve the case, as it was here.
Just my thoughts.
Another point of view, and one I see not much problem with, is that if you already know what the penalty is for committing a felony then too bad if you lose your rights.
In other words I think their rights should be restore after full payment of their penalty, but I don't feel sorry for the the ones whose rights are NOT restored because, as they say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
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.