Posted on 04/19/2021 12:02:55 PM PDT by GIdget2004
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a batch of legal battles involving the federal lifetime ban on firearms for people convicted of certain nonviolent crimes, sidestepping a contentious issue involving the Second Amendment.
The justices rejected appeals from three people who are barred from possessing firearms under federal law because of nonviolent misdemeanor and felony convictions. In declining to take up the cases, lower court decisions that found their Second Amendment rights were not violated by the ban remain in place.
The decision by the high court to stay away from the politically charged issue of gun rights comes in the wake of a spate of mass shootings in recent weeks, which have spurred calls for Congress to pass legislation restricting access to firearms. Still pending before the Supreme Court, however, is at least one dispute over restrictions for carrying a concealed handgun in public.
Gun rights supporters have hoped the high court would clarify the scope of the Second Amendment now that it boasts a 6-3 conservative majority. Some of the justices have taken note of the Supreme Court's reluctance to wade into the debate over gun rights and called for the court to address the issue in the wake of its last major gun rights decisions in 2008 and 2010, when it found the Second Amendment protects the right to have firearms in the home for self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
SCOTUS deeply hunkered in their Bunker.
Just waiting for Leftist reinforcements.
What good are they?
Question......off subject........if they can never get the right to have a firearm back then why are they allowed to get their voting rights back. Asking because I live in a democrat state (Virginia ugh) and they are allowed to vote again (which I think is wrong).
Worthless, cowardly scumbags.
This is how the three that Trump fought for reward him.
John Roberts needs the Pelican Brief treatment.
They can get their firearms rights back. There is a process under State law.
https://www.vsp.virginia.gov/Firearms_Restoration.shtm
There was a process under federal law as well, but the ATF hasn’t been funded to process any applications since the 1990s.
“The decision by the high court to stay away from the politically charged issue...”
How convenient. Of course they didn’t stay away from the politically charged issue of wholesale marriage redefinition until after Obama had appointed a slew of lower court moral anarchist to courts, and two radical leftists to the Supreme Court.
Felonies can have limited additional restrictions but those should be related to the crime.
Violent crimes should require that the convict prove to the court that they are no longer violent before restoration of privileges (such as firearms and/or voting)
This should have been an easy call. A perfect chance to address “shall not be infringed”.
The media still carries the lie that conservatives have a 6-3 majority. It makes their court packing plans seem logical to the hard left.
And without the state process is meaningless.
An outright BAN is not an INFRINGEMENT.
Interesting.
Our government has ZERO legitimacy...
A copyright violation, a DUI, and a “false statement” on a tax return. These should have been unanimous decisions, yet they won’t even hear them.
If the felony conviction was for State law, then restoration of rights under State law removes the disqualifier under 922(g).
If the felony conviction was under Federal law, then there is a problem, as absent a pardon, there isn’t a means to get rights restored at the federal level.
Point taken.
>>lower court decisions that found their Second Amendment rights were not violated by the ban remain in place.
Does not compute.
Meanwhile convicted felons on death row are being granted the right to vote. Or so Bernie Sanders and other Democrats hope.
It’s High Time we BAN Guns from those that have Taken an Oath to keep Secrets in Violet!! They can NEVER Be TRUSTED!
Amy Coward Braggart strikes again.
You need four justice votes to hear a case in the Supreme Court.
Amy wouldn’t vote to hear a single one on Election Theft 2020. Many expected she would vote on this one. Did she? Or was it someone else like Kavanaugh or refused to hear this case.
We certainly know Roberts is a no go.
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.