This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 06/06/2023 3:36:30 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
The 11-4 ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest defeat for gun control laws in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.
The decision stems from a 2020 lawsuit by a Pennsylvania man, Bryan Range, who was barred under federal law from possessing a gun after pleading guilty to welfare fraud. He claimed the prohibition violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Good
Wow...more common sense court rulings in favor of 2A...I have to pinch myself to make sure I’m awake...
It’s better than good! I’m a very long time proponent of just this type of thing and have actively worked to advance agendas just like this. Why should someone lose a God given right because they’ve been convicted of a felony? Let them serve their time and have all rights restored upon completion of their sentence.
This is absolutely fantastic news!
—added to banglist—
This is an excellent ruling.
Here is the link to the opinion of the Court if anyone wants to dive into the weeds and read more than the media’s interpretation of the court’s decision.
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen.pdf
America was once that way. There was also a notion that if you did your time you paid your debt to society. I believe that can be linked to a Christian notion of repentance and forgiveness. “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” It may be that some felons are never reformed because they meet obstacles the rest of their lives.
I know of this. I received a resume hand delivered by one of my employees. It was from one of his friends. My employee plead with me to hire his friend and explained he was a felon and did something really stupid. His friend was scared to death in apply for the job. He was utterly ashamed. I ended up hiring him. He became one of most my hardworking and loyal software engineers. Oh, and what he did was stupid - the stupidity of youth and imagine there are many people who had done the same without be caught.
There is one thing I am insistent. When people are found guilty of breaking the law, they serve their sentence. Sentences are given without regard of background, social status, etc. Now if a sentence truly fits the crime, then why would someone’s rights be taken away for life, but they are allowed in the general public? Criminals really don’t seem the type to follow the law anyway. If they are reformed and fully integrated back into society there is a lesser chance of breaking the law.
So they will just charge up with a violence charge to any misdemeanor. The government is like squeezing Jello. It just goes to another way out.
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
An Appeals Court, Sniffer didn’t get to.
Praise the Lord.
No, complete all terms of their sentence and then petition to have their rights restored.
I just read a few of the judges’ opinions. What you write is likely, as those in majority found very narrowly for the plaintiff’s particular non-violent crime. However, in their opinions they were not able to find longstanding historical precedent for violent felons. In fact, it is only recently, 1962, that became a blanket law only in terms of length of sentence, not based on violent or nonviolent offenses, determined lifelong loss of 2a rights. It takes going back to the Firearms Act of 1934 to find a limited number of violent offenses that required lifetime loss of 2a rights. It seems that was not long enough ago for these judges. They look much further back, towards our nation’s founding. The USSC ruling for Bruen does not specify how far back in history to find laws restricting use of firearms, nor does it address violent vs. nonviolent felons. But given the majority opinion, it seems likely these specifics will one day require a ruling from the USSC to further clarify.
I am by no means a legal scholar or expert. That is just my take on reading the opinions. The leftists on this court read like, well leftists. It was tortured, so I did not read all of their opinions. I only assume the vast majority of judges in the nation are of that ilk.
Do you realize how much that would junk up the courts time wise? The USSC is going to have to provide some clarity. From reading the opinions it seems 2a deprivation can occur on sentences as short as one year, served or not, and on all sentences greater than two years, violent or not, and/or served or not. This was a very narrow ruling and does not address anything broader.
Always read between the lines, considering the agenda of the state. They are relentless and long game.
Totally agree.
Yes, if you are a nonviolent felon, your punishment should end when you have completed your sentence. Further denial of rights is an ex post facto punishment and violated the double jeopardy prohibition in the Constitution.
Sounds like that would overturn the standing law that make ALL felons ineligible to possess firearms.
May it be so!
I would argue that even violent criminals should have rights restored once a custodial sentence or legal restitution is completed. If they are OK to be let out of jail they are full citizens.
Notice, there are a lot of crimes where the criminal should never get out
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.