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.
In addition, there is this:
At root, the Government’s claim that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from “the people.” We reject that approach because such “extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.” Folajtar, 980 F.3d at 912 (Bibas, J., dissenting). And that deference would contravene Heller’s reasoning that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 554 U.S. at 636; see also Bruen,142 S. Ct. at 2131 (warning against “judicial deference to legislative interest balancing”).
Every Constitutional-supporting American citizen should be jumping for joy at the language in this opinion!
Yes, “felony” means so many things it really means nothing anymore.