MN Supreme Court - I don't think this is right.


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
June 2, 2009, 10:02 PM
.

Juvenile convictions can void adult gun rights

By Steve Karnowski
Associated Press
Updated: 06/02/2009 04:18:34 PM CDT

The Minnesota Court of Appeals says a man convicted of a violent crime when he was a juvenile doesn't have a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm.

Ryan Turnbull was convicted in Swift County in 2007 after a conservation officer saw him carrying a gun during hunting season in 2006. He had been found delinquent in juvenile court in 2004 of felony drive-by shooting and other charges.

Turnbull argued to the Court of Appeals his right to have a gun is protected by a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last June that affirmed the right to have guns for self-defense in the home.

But the appeals court says that ruling was "very limited" in scope.

Turnbull's attorney says he expects to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.




I think crimes you commit as a juvenile shouldn't strike against you as an adult.

Obviously extreme cases like premeditated murder or something like that are different.


I think this leads to a slippery slope. What do you think?

.

If you enjoyed reading about "MN Supreme Court - I don't think this is right." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
usmarine0352_2005
June 2, 2009, 10:10 PM
.
This is one of these extreme cases.

But I'm talking in general.

.

eight433
June 2, 2009, 10:14 PM
considering he was involved in a drive by shooting,I say he absolutely has no business with a gun, for self defense or otherwise.

RP88
June 2, 2009, 10:15 PM
Yep, it's right. Now, if we lived under a real justice system, and he had been freed after the 25 years in prison he deserved to serve for attempted murder among other things, then I'd maybe have a different opinion.

Travlin
June 2, 2009, 10:17 PM
He was convicted of a drive-by shooting. I think the court was right in this case.

Now, a non-violent crime as a juvenile would be a different matter in my opinion and restoration of gun rights could make sense, depending on the circumstances.

Larry Ashcraft
June 2, 2009, 10:24 PM
This is one of these extreme cases.

But I'm talking in general.
I don't think the court likes to rule in "general" terms. Leads to confusion, and the law doesn't like confusion of terms.
I think crimes you commit as a juvenile shouldn't strike against you as an adult.
So, you should get a free pass until you are 18? My dad didn't subscribe to that notion, and I'm glad of it.

Mags
June 2, 2009, 10:26 PM
considering he was involved in a drive by shooting,I say he absolutely has no business with a gun, for self defense or otherwise.
+1000

Fat_46
June 2, 2009, 11:38 PM
While I firmly believe this individual should NOT be afforded his right to keep and bear arms, I'm not certain, based on prior case law, that an act committed and prosecuted as a juvenile necessarily vacates one's Constitutional rights.

I have questions on whether he can now vote, or exercise other rights, or if those have been vacated as well.

Officers'Wife
June 2, 2009, 11:44 PM
The law states clearly that anyone convicted of a felony is a 'prohibited person.' Ergo the ruling by definition is correct, if there is a wrong it is the law.

Selena

Truthseeker
June 3, 2009, 01:26 AM
Drive-by shootings don't qualify as a lawful use of a weapon. No, barring him from firearm ownership is legitimate.

FlyinBryan
June 3, 2009, 01:37 AM
well, the man was convicted of participating in a drive-by shooting.


i feel like if the legal system had a single ounce of applied logic, and moral integrity, the only question you could possibly ask on the subject of whether or not this idiot should be allowed to have a gun would read something like this:

"should prison inmates be allowed to purchase firearms?"

my opinion is this.

if you do a drive by and your 14, you go to big boy jail, along with your parental unit.

eitrheim31
June 3, 2009, 01:45 AM
Ryan Turnbull was convicted in Swift County in 2007 after a conservation officer saw him carrying a gun during hunting season in 2006. He had been found delinquent in juvenile court in 2004 of felony drive-by shooting and other charges.

sounds to me like he wasn't much older when he was found with a gun. in this case especially he shouldn't be allowed a firearm.

akodo
June 3, 2009, 03:15 AM
for serious crimes like murder and attempted murder, the concept of treating someone less than 18 with kid gloves is just moronic.

The guy should be behind bars.


Also, your juvy record doesn't disappear when you hit 18. It's just that whatever you do prior to 18 is sheilded from public record.

If a law states 'If you have had 2 or more DWIs you need to carry extra auto insurance' and your two DWI convictions were at ages 16 and 17...you still are covered by that law.

Sealed is different than expunged

KingYaba
June 3, 2009, 05:12 AM
This guy has already paid his debt to society. He's a citizen is he not?

Deus Machina
June 3, 2009, 05:57 AM
Yes, but he has proven he hardly has the best judgement, his right was removed by due process, and prohibiting him from buying a firearm (ineffectively) is considered part of the punishment.

That's something people should consider--if you get caught doing these kinds of things, how are you supposed to protect yourself from the other thugs? I'm all for the violent convictions putting that choice on someone.

That said, people can change, and I'm also for giving felons a chance to get their records cleared and get their rights back after a time, easier than it is to now.

Davek1977
June 3, 2009, 06:02 AM
Sorry, but I tend to agree with the court. If someone committed a drive-by two years ago, I don't want to run across that person carrying a gun afield today. I don't think a fistfight after school should disqualify someone from owning a gun...but a drive-by? Anyone stupid enough to take part in such a thing, juvenile OR adult, should have their gun rights stripped completely. Any kind of second offense involving a firearm justifies a life sentence in my book. I don't want MY rights restricted because some court decided to give someone a third chance, and they finally managed to kill a few people with their stupidity and impulsiveness. I believe we all have a right to gun ownership...right until its proven we cannot handle that responsibility, regardless of age.

moewadle
June 3, 2009, 06:42 AM
Drive-by shootings should be enough to take away his gun rights forever! A 10 year-old should know how serious a drive-by shooting is, let alone a teen of whatever age.

TAB
June 3, 2009, 06:48 AM
violent felony, at any age should stop you from owning a gun.

The only reason this guy was out of jail was do to his age. IMO if your old enough to commit a violent felony, your old enough to be tried and treated as a adult.

MAURICE
June 3, 2009, 07:39 AM
He was convicted of a drive by in 04, and again for possessing a firearm only three years later?
I have to agree with them.

tjj
June 3, 2009, 07:49 AM
One of the Washington snipers was just a teenager too. I wouldn't want him to ever own a gun again whether he paid his debt to society or not.
As much as I don't like anyone being denied the right to own a gun there are those that have demonstrated they can't stay on the right side of the law.

alsaqr
June 3, 2009, 07:56 AM
The Minnesota Court of Appeals says a man convicted of a violent crime when he was a juvenile doesn't have a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm.

Ryan Turnbull was convicted in Swift County in 2007 after a conservation officer saw him carrying a gun during hunting season in 2006. He had been found delinquent in juvenile court in 2004 of felony drive-by shooting and other charges.


The guy did a felony drive-by shooting as a punk. He should never, ever be allowed to own a gun.

geronimo509
June 3, 2009, 08:00 AM
the real question should be, why is this guy not in jail 2 years after pulling a drive by?

JohnBT
June 3, 2009, 08:24 AM
"This guy has already paid his debt to society."

You do not know that. He could be on parole or probation or still owe court costs and fines, etc. For all we know he still owes for some or all of the damage he did during the drive by.

Serving your time in jail or prison isn't the same thing as fully paying your debt.

John

Tim the student
June 3, 2009, 08:30 AM
It was a drive by, and he was carrying 3 years after the fact. It is definitely right for this guy to not carry. Maybe in the future sometime, but not now.

That being said, we definitely do not know all the details that would help us decide.

I guess it is possible he was shooting at crows from a car or something stupid like that. We just don't know, but it sounds like right now that he is not the nicest of guys, and is not the kind of guy I want carrying near me.

briney11
June 3, 2009, 08:36 AM
"Ryan Turnbull was convicted in Swift County in 2007 after a conservation officer saw him carrying a gun during hunting season in 2006."

So how did this kid get a hunting license??? Or was he hunting illegally too.

atomd
June 3, 2009, 08:47 AM
It didn't say he was hunting...just that he was carrying a firearm. He could have been target shooting in the woods or something like that. I don't understand why this person isn't in jail somewhere right now. It just shows how messed up our courts are.

Maelstrom
June 3, 2009, 08:53 AM
I kind of like China's philosophy on some things. It goes like this,

"We have 3,000,000,000 people so if you screw up, no one is going to feel bad when we kill you for being stupid."

DHJenkins
June 3, 2009, 10:20 AM
What amazes me is that so many people think that an idiot/scumbag is going to suddenly turn into a responsible citizen on their 18th birthday. Like they're going to look back and say "well, enough of those shenanigans - I need to be a good boy/girl now".

There shouldn't even be a juvenile court system.

crebralfix
June 3, 2009, 10:20 AM
If he's judged suitable to be let out of prison, then he should have all his rights. PERIOD.

If he's not suitable to be let out...then don't let him out!!

We are creating a felon class in this country. It limits their ability to get good paying jobs by attaching a stigma (this includes loans for small businesses). If such jobs are not available, then there is little incentive to change.

This whole notion of limiting this or that right based on a condition opens the door for a whole host of abuses. Even misdemeanor domestic violence now results in revocation of RKBA. Given some of the shoddy "investigations" and unconditional support of the woman by some courts...even the accusation can land you in trouble.

We really do need to roll all this crap back. Unfortunately, it won't happen without a lot of turn-over in all three branches of government.

DHJenkins
June 3, 2009, 10:24 AM
If he's judged suitable to be let out of prison, then he should have all his rights. PERIOD.


There's the flaw in your argument - juveniles don't go to prison, and the law says they must be released by a certain age, regardless of the crime. So really, they aren't paying their debt to society at all.

heron
June 3, 2009, 10:56 AM
Drive-by shooting=attempted murder. No guns for this one.

Madcap_Magician
June 3, 2009, 12:34 PM
I would say a felony drive-by shooting is probably something that should disqualify you from owning a firearm. If he wants his 2A rights back and has been a good boy for a good long time, he should petition a court to have his civil rights reinstated.

Travis Bickle
June 3, 2009, 01:08 PM
Sorry, but I tend to agree with the court. If someone committed a drive-by two years ago, I don't want to run across that person carrying a gun afield today.

Well, here's the thing. When a person gets released from prison for committing a drive-by, there are one of two possibilities. Either he's rehabilitated himself, in which case you don't have to worry about him committing another drive-by, or he's not rehabilitated himself, in which case he will just ignore the law.

As you can see, in all cases, the law is either unnecessary or ineffectual.

I think a better solution to all this is probably to just permanently dispose of people who commit drive-bys.

bigione
June 3, 2009, 02:21 PM
Lock him up, send me the only key. I'll see if the key will stand up to a gas torch.

If you enjoyed reading about "MN Supreme Court - I don't think this is right." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!