Posted on 01/26/2003 8:07:46 AM PST by FSPress
LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- A man was sentenced Friday to 2½ years in prison for owning guns while under a protective order -- a limitation on gun rights that an appeals court held was constitutionally acceptable.
The U.S. Supreme Court last June declined to hear arguments that Timothy Emerson should have been allowed to keep his guns under the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
Emerson was indicted after the restraining order was issued during his divorce in 1998. He owned several rifles and a handgun at the time.
A federal judge dismissed the charges, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision in 2001, ruling that an individual's right to bear arms could be restricted in some circumstances.
In Emerson's case and a similar one the Supreme Court also rejected, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual as well as the collective right to gun ownership. That position reversed decades-old policy on the Second Amendment.
The administration, though, did not support Emerson's appeal, saying the Second Amendment right was still subject to reasonable restrictions.
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case sent it back to the district court, where Emerson was convicted in October.
Emerson's attorney, David Guinn, argued at trial his client shouldn't be punished for owning guns that were legal once his divorce was completed. He plans to appeal the sentence.
Emerson had faced a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
So when I say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states, it's not because of some agenda of mine, it's just a fact. Since Californians have faced that fact, it gives them the incentive to write a RKBA proposition to add to the California state constitution.
Has nothing to do with this thread, but I just wanted to weigh in.
The whole basis of our legal system is the question of 'What would a reasonable person do?' Perhaps when more and more people embrace your brand of irrationality, then the law will drift in your direction. Legalizing drug abuse will help accelerate that process toward normalizing irrationality, by the way.
I've often wondered how today's 'everything in black & white' interpreters of the Constitution explained that, with the 'shall not be infringed' and all.
"The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation (14th amendment, 1868), discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill."
"Thus in the early 1960's, the Establishment Clause, the right to counsel, the rights of free speech, assembly, and petition, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures were quickly incorporated. Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment)."
Some have added the 9th to the list of exceptions. The 10th is a moot point regarding personal rights. Basically, the Bill of (personal) Rights are the first eight.
You have got to be kidding. A child should be able to explain that one.
Please tell me that you are not under the illusion that even the most ardent 2A supporters believe in RKBA for prisoners?
"Resonsable restrictions" would include removing arms from a prisoner upon arrest and incarceration, but cannot include removing them upon a routine court injuction.
Gun laws don't make people more responsible, conscientious, or safe. They do, however, create new classes of criminals with every legislative act.
Not to mention that as a convicted felon, he may never own a gun again.
The only correct statement you made was "No, you cannot possess a firearm while in prison." That is because you forfeit you Constitutional rights when you are afforded due process and incarcerated.
As to the rest of your ignorance, there are other laws that provide penalties for not using good judgement and consideration of you neighbors, but they are not 2nd Amendment based.
Only you have invented a 'balancing test'.
Don't bother me with stupid arguments. If you cannot provide some sort of proof that anyone advocates RKBA for incarcerated persons or that the founders advocated the same (and quotes will show that they didn't) then don't even bring this topic up because nobody is wanting both ways as you state.
Do you consider those restrictions "reasonable"?
Hmmm. I clicked on "View Replies" and it said "No replies."
Who wants to have it both ways and where did they suggest that? It is a stupid as dicussing whether or not your neighbor should have a nuke.
Should me where anyone 'wants it both ways' or admit that you are inventing the situation.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams
Prior to the 14th Amendment, they could--and did. Heck, some states even had official churches (which the establishment clause forbade Congress from doing).
Glad to hear you survived. I hope the judge is in Hell now.
Much of what passes today as "divorce laws" is BS.
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.