« Suits against firearm mfrs and retailers | Main | Hunter Biden to plead out »
2A as applied to non-violent offenses
The Third Circuit just ruled en banc on this, in Range v. Attorney General. The plaintiff had been convicted of welfare fraud, an offense designated as a misdemeanor but, since it was punishable by more than a year's imprisonment, was treated as a felony under the Gun Control Act. The court ruled, 13-2, that barring the plaintiff from owning firearms was a violation of the Second Amendment as applied.
Some other circuits, I should note, don't even allow "as applied" challenges to felon-in-possession.
14 Comments | Leave a comment
Remarkable how NYSRPA (Bruen) appears to have really changed the judicial trajectory with respect to our right to arms. Many legislatures, it seems, are on another trajectory entirely.
Actually, an individual who has deceit instead of violence to deprive another of their home or savings, or who risks the future of others by using drugs or alcohol does not deserve to possess a firearm to use "next time". A friend lost long-term friends to a drunk "loaned" a car to 5X drunk without an alcohol lock. Thus death without "violence". The penalties are not strict enough or well enough enforced for most offences. No firearms. The drunk and his family can not be trusted.
The dissent asked the question, "why didn't Range just petition the court to have his rights restored?" I have to agree.
Any statistics on how many disqualified persons do this?
I know that Congress has not funded the ATF program to restore rights, the ruling even mentioned it; there are other mechanisms, and I'd like a informed guess on how many there are, and how often they succeed, and where.
Tie the right to possess firearms to the right to vote and the restrictions on both will be a lot more reasonable.
Voting is a privilege not a right except in the minds of those who incorrectly call voting a right. The conflation of what is a "right" and what is a "Right" is done purposely so that those in charge can control the people.
Rights come from God. Privileges come from man/govt. Privileges can be given and taken by whomever is in charge. Rights cannot be legitimately removed. We may restrict the God given Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness that is enshrined in the 2nd and others but we cannot eliminate Rights endowed by God.
@FW "Rights come from God. Privileges come from man/govt. ... but we cannot eliminate Rights endowed by God."
I totally agree as a matter of principle. But as a reminder of reality, humans have been taking/squashing/eliminating the God-given rights of other humans since the dawn of humans. It may be "illegitimate" but it's reality all the same.
Maybe that is because your imaginary sky friend can't grant rights either?!?
FW: "Voting is a privilege not a right except in the minds of those who incorrectly call voting a right."
One way to put it. Or, voting is a created right. Or voting is a government-granted right. Or a procedural right versus a substantive right.
The vote is clearly not a natural right.
Praying for you.
Since you don't believe in my imaginary sky friend, you must not believe in the Declaration of Independence and thus you have no rights only privileges and immunities as allowed by the rest of us. Don't whine when we take away those privileges and immunities. You have no authority to do so.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Declaration of Independence doesn't grant rights either. Seeing as how you are pretty bad at deciphering these documents, maybe you can find a remedial civics class at your local community college or day care?
Come on guys...keep coming to see new post and it's just you two going at it.
I think the majority nailed it! Great opinion.
Always ad hominem.
Never said the Decl granted anything. Neither does the Constitution. The BoR is an enumeration of Rights that preexist the document. The Decl points to the source of those Rights.
This is over.
My apologies Say_It_Isnt_So. I was arguing with an _____ and lost to its experience.
Those questions on the 4473 keep falling, soon we won't need the form, nor the ATF.