Posted on 06/06/2023 3:40:06 PM PDT by CFW
A different court ruled the prohibition on marijuana use was unconstitutional, I believe.
***********
It doesn’t matter to me what laws on guns or weed are passed.
I do want I want regardless of these idiot parasites in courtrooms.
“I know they’re movies, but you see in older westerns the warden hands the men their gun belts when they get released from prison.”
That’s because it was a given at the time. The released person was now a former prisoner and had paid their debt to society, therefore all their rights were restored. Until the early 1820s there was never a question as to whether your rights were returned once you had done your prescribed time in prison. At first it was one state, Connecticut or Virginia, I believe, then other states started limiting the rights of those who had been convicted of a crime.
In the beginning for those states, it was certain crimes, then more and more crimes were added until almost any crime was sufficient to have your 2nd Amendment, but no other, rights taken away. In those states you could have your right to own a firearms taken from you but still be allowed to retain other rights or privileges.
The 2nd Amendment has for decades been the “red-headed child” of natural rights. Since our nation’s founding, our God-given rights have been chipped away bit by bit. I don’t think we had any national firearms laws until the late 1960’s after Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed. Prior to then, firearms were legislated state by state. Once those laws became national, the noose started tightening.
In the movies and shows as television was introduced, if the warden felt the prisoner continued to pose a threat or was thinking of harming someone, he would warn the thug to be careful or he would find himself right back in jail. However, he still returned to the former prisoner his gun belt and firearm. Of course Matt Dillon always just killed the SOB.
Now, the thugs seldom see the inside of a jail and criminals have more rights than those who have never committed a crime. It is way past time for a judge to rule just as Judge Hardiman ruled in this case. Hurrah for Judge Hardiman!
Another part of the ruling:
Founding-era laws often prescribed the forfeiture of the weapon used to commit a firearms-related offense without affecting the perpetrator’s right to keep and bear arms generally. See, e.g., Act of Dec. 21, 1771, ch. 540, N.J. Laws 343–344 (“An Act for the Preservation of Deer, and other Game, and to prevent trespassing with Guns”); Act of Apr. 20, 1745, ch. 3, N.C. Laws 69–70 (“An Act to prevent killing deer at unseasonable times, and for putting a stop to many abuses committed by white persons, under pretence of hunting”). Range’s crime, however—making a false statement on an application for food stamps—did not involve a firearm, so there was no criminal instrument to forfeit. And even if there were, government confiscation of the instruments of crime (or a convicted criminal’s entire estate) differs from a status-based lifetime ban on firearm possession.
The Government has not cited a single statute or case that precludes a convict who has served his sentence from purchasing the same type of object that he used to commit a crime. Nor has the Government cited forfeiture cases in which the convict was prevented from regaining his possessions, including firearms (except where forfeiture preceded execution). That’s true whether the object forfeited to the government was a firearm used to hunt out of season, a car used to transport cocaine, or a mobile home used 21 as a methamphetamine lab. And of those three, only firearms are mentioned in the Bill of Rights.10
Judge Hardiman and his clerks have researched and thought through this case well very well indeed.
However, this is what I was looking for (see concluding statement below). How narrow is the opinion and to whom does it apply? Although, I suspect the cases cited and the judge’s opinion will be used in every firearms case going forward we have to look at how narrow is the judge’s opinion. Although even now, briefs in pending cases are being re-written to include this judge’s reasoning and cases cited to make sure they are included.
Our decision today is a narrow one. Bryan Range challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) only as applied to him given his violation of 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a). Range remains one of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, and his eligibility to lawfully purchase a rifle and a shotgun is protected by his right to keep and bear arms. Because the Government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, § 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand so the Court can enter a declaratory judgment in favor of Range, enjoin enforcement of § 922(g)(1) against him, and conduct any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[CFW’s comment: Doesn’t seem that narrow to me.]
Then: PORTER, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I join the majority opinion in full. I write separately to
highlight one reason why there are no examples of founding,
antebellum, or Reconstruction-era federal laws like 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) permanently disarming non-capital criminals.
If any Freepers want me to post more from the opinion and concurrences (or dissents) tomorrow, let me know and I will do so.
This a good step toward restoring that. If you are too dangerous to have a firearm, you are too dangerous to release. My rights are not dependent on the good behavior of criminals.
That’s kind of a kill shot.
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.