Sounds like this case could be the start for felons getting their Second Amendment rights restored. If this defendant wins on his affirmative defense argument we could see a future case of a felon with a gun in his own home shooting and killing another felon in a home invasion case and that afirmative defense where be a felon has a Second Amendment right to armed self-defense in the same manner as a law-abiding citizen.

Here's a 9th Circuit case touching upon this subject:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/appgomez.htm

I am waiting for the case where a convicted felon made his own AK receiver out of an old Ford door panel and put it together with a parts kit. The federal felon in possession statute requires that the "firearm" traveled in inter-state commerce and that showing is part of every prosecution under said statute. That "component parts" traveled in inter-state commerce was, at least pre-Raich, not enough.

DV is not a feony. Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor. When the first DV laws were passed, some of us spoke out about the fact that this was the first time in the history of tghe US that one could lose fundamental rights for a misdemeanor.

But of course, it's all "reasonable".

May God strike down those who think the word "reasonable" appears in the 2nd. Those who believe government has the authority to restrict Rights with "reasonable" actions DOES NOT UNDERSTAND our form of government. If it is not explicitly granted, the government does not have the legitimate authority to do it. PERIOD!@!

Those who cannot read the delegated powers and recognize the interconnectedness which totally eliminates ANY implicit powers is a fool.

Tiocfaidh ar la!

WRT felons: Why should non-violent felons EVER lose their RIGHTS? Violent felons, no problem, cause in a proper system, violent felons are eliminated.

But then because these are INALIENABLE Rights granted by God to man, the Rights cannot be legitimately removed by government nor can these Rights be given up by the person. THAT is what INALIENABLE means.

Tir gan teanga, tir gan anam!

Actually, crimes considered to be felonies seem to have expanded dramatically. It seems almost difficult to conceive of a crime that could not somehow be charged as a felony. And therefore, subject to the loss of gun rights.

The right to not be locked in a cage is an inalienable right, but it can be legitimately removed by government if you are fairly convicted of certain crimes. Think of all felony convictions as having a life sentence, often starting with being locked in a cage, and continuing thereafter with a permanent prohibition of gun possession.

Of course there's an "ex post facto" injustice if the felony was committed before the possession ban was enacted, but because the law came into effect about forty years ago, few felons can claim that excuse.