Supreme Court Rejects Gun Rights for Felons

Newsmax.com ^ | Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002 | Newsmax.com wires

[jjm2111]

I don't thik this was posted before. In short, the "felon" in question was the gun dealer who was committing the "crime" of having one box of shotgun shells in his truck while in Mexico. I think this decision was buried in the back pages.

More and more I'm thinking GWB & Co. does not really care about gun rights. I got a link to this article from the newsletter put out by the The Sight M1911 . It's really good site for 1911 enthusiasts.

[joesnuffy]

Gun rights erode at the rate of 100 MPH under dems and 25 mph under the pubbies imo

[TRY ONE]

Convicted felons should do like G. Gordon Liddy who
says, "as a convicted felon, I cannot and do not own
any firearms.....but my wife has one hell of a collection...."

[Kerberos]

"Convicted felons should do like G. Gordon Liddy who says, "as a convicted felon, I cannot and do not own any firearms.....but my wife has one hell of a collection...."

Is that legal?

[Wonder Warthog]

"However, in 1992 the non-profit Violence Policy Center released a study showing that ATF had approved about a third of the 22,000 requests from felons for restoration of gun rights. The ATF later conceded that 69 of the felons who had been granted restoration of gun rights had been re-arrested for crimes such as attempted murder, first-degree sexual assault, kidnapping, child molestation, illegal possession of a machine gun and drug trafficking."

Hmmmmm--1/3 of 22,0000 people had their rights restored (~7300 folks). Of these, 69 later committed crimes, so the ATF had an error rate of less than 1% (0.9%). I think that is acceptable, especially compared to the NORMAL recidivism rate for criminals.

[Kerberos]

"Hmmmmm--1/3 of 22,0000 people had their rights restored (~7300 folks). Of these, 69 later committed crimes, so the ATF had an error rate of less than 1% (0.9%). I think that is acceptable, especially compared to the NORMAL recidivism rate for criminals."

To get an accurate comparison I think it would be interesting to see how many people, who have never been convicted of a crime and purchase a firearm, an then use that firearm to commit a crime.

[demkicker]

I have a friend whose brother was once an up and coming democrat in Texas. He got caught in some sort of campaign kickback scheme and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison for a couple of years. He was a huge hunter and his family owns lots of land, and according to his sister, it was particularly painful that he couldn't legally own or use a firearm anymore.

A couple of years ago, my friend told me that her brother could pay around $25,000.00 (I think I'm right about this figure) to have some of his gun rights re-instated. It must be some obscure Texas law we have here, but I found it very interesting. Wish I'd paid more attention and had gotten more details. Will try to find out more info from her one day. Sounds like one of those rich man's loopholes to me.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Eagle Eye]

And it won't be long before mundane 'crimes' soon become felonies.

No one has yet suitably explained to me why the 2A has been singled out of the BoR to be forever denied a felon. The one right that "shall not be infringed" can be forever denied to a person for fish and game violations like possessing a bald eagle feather.

[white trash redneck]

Two points to make here:

First, like other posters, I don't see how a conviction in Mexico of an "offense" that is not a crime in the US would count as a felony.

Second, like many SC decisions, while this case was, on its face, a gun rights case, the issue that the SC decided was whether a judge could take over a legislative function - the fact that this case involved gun rights was peripheral to the issue before the court.

[Redleg Duke]

Hell yes! She isn't a convicted felon...just married to one.

[Double Tap]

BTTT for later

[ninenot]

My take on the news item (most comprehensive one I have seen on the case) is that BATF needs a good kick in the dupa to actually do its job.

Of course, BATF is still loaded with Clintonista/Renoid types which accounts for its dereliction of duty in this case.

The Supremes avoided the Constitutional question to simply wash their hands, effectively leaving the poor guy in limbo, for as long as the BATF wants to keep him there.

[Kerberos]

"Hell yes! She isn't a convicted felon...just married to one."

But I was under the impression that a convicted felon could not own or be in possession of a firearm. So even if Liddy did not purchase the weapons but they are still located in his principle place of abode, I'm assuming that he lives with his wife, could he then not be said to be in possession of a weapon?

[1Old Pro]

This is why more and more "crimes" are being made into felonies. Soon everyone will be a felon, and guess what, nobody will have guns.

[ninenot]

Well, the study you propose should have a sub-heading: "Where was the weapon purchased?"--with specific reference to 'the street' or a licensed FFL shop.

THAT may make a large difference in the findings of the study.

[1Old Pro]

And it won't be long before mundane 'crimes' soon become felonies.

EXACTLY, in some states simply being "accused" of domestic violence now prohibits gun ownership.

[Kerberos]

"THAT may make a large difference in the findings of the study."

I think that would be correct in that it is probably a safe assumption that those who purchase firearms through unlawful channels may not have the best of intents for their use.

[jjm2111]

Second, like many SC decisions, while this case was, on its face, a gun rights case, the issue that the SC decided was whether a judge could take over a legislative function - the fact that this case involved gun rights was peripheral to the issue before the court.

That's what I figgered too. However the fact that it was a Mexican "offense" there was no real felony in the first place. How can one be a felon for something that is not a crime in the USA? SCOTUS could have just declined to hear the case.

[Eagle Eye]

Or routine restraining orders in divorces.

Or the VA alerting the feds that a vet has had treatment for PTSD.