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 ...
Second amendy
This sounds a lot more like a States’ Rights issue than a 2nd Amendment issue. VA chooses to allow (some) felons to re-acquire the right to own and use firearms, whereas MD does not. That does not violate the 2nd, which affirms the general right to bear arms. The Tenth amendment (presumably) provides for states to abrogate certain rights under certain circumstances, similarly to the 14th-amendment provision for losing one’s franchise for certain crimes.
Overall, from the limited amount of reading I’ve done on this, this is an area that is still being litigated (loss of certain rights after conviction). Right now, the MD situation is still the law, so unless the law gets changed, the guy is stuck. If he didn’t want to become subject to MD’s laws, he shouldn’t have moved there.
I’m not sure I see a problem with the particular case used as an example here. A convicted felon has partial rights restored in the state he committed the felony, including gun ownership rights and then moves to Maryland where the state denies rights to felons unless the the felon receives a full pardon.
I think that most states do not restore all rights to felons without a full pardon. Live a good life for a while and then apply for a pardon and all is well. If you don’t get it remember to tell your kids to not be convicted felon.
One thing about the Second Amendment that enrages me is that states can pass laws to regulate it.No such laws exist with the 5th Amendment....it’s universal nationwide,so why the 2nd?
Your last sentence says it all. I question how seriously this guy takes his rights under the U.S. Constitution if he moved from Virginia to a neighboring state that has long demonstrated such open hostility to those rights.
I agree. I know I am in a very minority opinion but the Constitution doesn’t say anything about restricting the time, place or manner, nor what actions may be disqualifying.
It is not just a Constitutional question either. Do people who committed felonies in the past lose the right to self protection forever in the future? I say no. But I am sure very few agree with me on this.
There should be a clear path to regain the right.
A pardon isn’t a clear path because it is totally dependent on the politics and personality of one man.
I think this skirts the issue. The issue raised is not what *is* but what *should* *be*. First what is a felony? Next, what are its total effects on constitutional rights, if any? What varies, state to state, and why should it vary state to state? If it is still being litigated, why so, and for how long must a person wait?
What are the purposes of punishment for a crime? What are the goals? in particular, the goals of non-life-sentence prison time?
From the other angle, what is redemption, and is redemption worthwhile as an outcome of the justice system?
I think, if redemption has value, then barring unusual circumstances (violent crime, esp. involving homicide, mutilation, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, treason, etc.) then redemption should be offered as part of the judicial system.
If we are saying in so many words that redemption is not possible we should be realistic imho on what to expect in the future from that person once he or she is released from prison in terms of recidivism.
Popping up a level, I would say that a primary goal in life in general is compassion. Without compassion, we are, imho, not much different from rocks on a desert moon, occasionally grinding against each other, but mostly baking in the airless sunlight until we become dust. Compassion is a quality beyond intelligent self awareness in that it includes an understanding that we are human in the sense that we all (?*) occasionally make mistakes, and that once we make restitution, that we can be redeemed.
Naturally much of this grades into religion and so can be contentious. However, one can still debate the practical and pragmatic aspects of the issue.
* at those of us who have not made it to perfection and/or who have not been transformed into machines
No, this isn’t a 2nd amendment issue, he is a felon.
“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”÷
So all they have to do is “employ strict scrutiny” (whatever the hell that is) then proceed to ban regular magazines, semi autos, etc. Works for CO, NY, CA, CT etc. Lovely system.
I feel like there's a "full faith and credit" issue here. And maybe some kind of due process issue as well.
I find myself in agreement with you. A felon should not automatically lose the right to defend his or her life. There are far too many non-crimes that are regarded as felonies to begin.
My only caveat is that if the felony in question involves violence against another person’s rights, person or property. In those cases, the felon should not only be denied access to arms, but to air as well.
Shouldn’t have been buying computers with stolen credit cards.
If this keeps up, it will be the duty and responsibility of the U.S. citizens to exercise our Second Amendment rights to remind the politicians and “judges” what the Second Amendment is all about.
Virginia Governor McCaulliffe ‘restored’ felons right to vote so they could vote for Shrillary. That alone was fraud, IMO. That vote to restore felons voting rights should have been done by the entire citizenry of Virginia....not just one person.
...agree. I know I am in a very minority opinion but the Constitution doesn’t say anything about restricting the time, place or manner, nor what actions may be disqualifying...
Nor does the 1at amendment list time,.place and manner for free speech. Nor, does the 4th limit exceptions to search and seizure other than warrant requirements.
Move back to Virginia.
I agree. Could the state remove my 1st amendment right?
Federal law prohibits any person convicted of a felony from possessing firearms. No matter what a particular state might say. So he couldn’t have legally had a firearm in Virginia, 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.