« U Pa refuses to recognize student hunting, shooting, and conservation group | Main | Boulder mass killing »
Interesting thoughts on prohibited persons
Some thoughts on the possible impact of Lange v. California, which was recently argued in the Supreme Court. A number of the Justices seem to be skeptical, in the 4th Amendment context, of drawing lines based on the felony vs. misdemeanor distinction, and to be alert to the fact that today we have a lot of felonies that involve minor and non-dangerous conduct.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
As our training officer explained that the difference between a felony and misdemeanor was that a felony used to be eligible for the death penalty.
This line was already blurred when I attended his class in the late 1970s. As I recall either a federal or state law had recently created the crime of felony littering.
Democrats : No person is illegal.
also Democrats : We need to expand the defintion of prohibited persons.
Prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons works about as well as every other gun law. Does anyone really think the worst of the worst will not have a gun anyway? What it does do is prohibit some poor SOB who got busted, did his time, and has no intention of re-offending, from defending themselves and their family. It is one more way for the police to go fishing, one more way to apply pressure, for even as little as a single round of ammo. It is just another charge used in pursuit of a plea bargain conviction.
....The distinction between felonies and misdemeanors is hazy because it's made on an arbitrary basis. If the determination of arms possession is based on an estimation of future violence, expect courts to view emotion based " Hate speech " as a stand in for violent behavior. Political affiliation will be used to deny self defense rights. Logic and reason cannot control a system based on feelings and emotion.