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.
From the opinion on this case:
“Fourth, the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” is as expansive as it is vague. Who are “law-abiding” citizens in this context? Does it exclude those who have committed summary offenses or petty misdemeanors, which typically result in a ticket and a small fine? No. We are confident that the Supreme Court’s references to “law-abiding, responsible citizens” do not mean that every American who gets a traffic ticket is no longer among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps, then, the category refers only to those who commit “real crimes” like felonies or felony-equivalents?
At English common law, felonies were so serious they were punishable by estate forfeiture and even death. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 54 (1769).
But today, felonies include a wide swath of crimes, some of which seem minor.5 And some misdemeanors seem serious.6
As the Supreme Court noted recently: “a felon is not always more dangerous than a misdemeanant.” Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2020 (2021) (cleaned up). As for the modifier “responsible,” it serves only to undermine the Government’s argument because it renders the category hopelessly vague. In our Republic of over 330 million people, Americans have widely divergent ideas about what is required for one to be considered a “responsible” citizen. “
What is a “law-abiding citizen” Hubby and I have often discussed the fact that the courts should rule that if a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm, then they are too dangerous to be allowed to walk the streets without a handler or guard to make sure they do not harm others. Other than that, they should be locked away from society.
Courts now allow murderers and rapists to be freed on bail even though they have seriously harmed others. Those same people are often caught with firearms but not taken back into custody. Exactly WHO ARE law-abiding citizens? What is that legal definition?
I’m really enjoying reading the opinion in this case.
“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!