Article: Justice Barrett’s Vote Could Tilt the Supreme Court on Gun Rights

Aim1 said:

This case pertains to being convicted of a non-violent felony and losing your 2nd Amendment rights.
While I agree you shouldn't lose your 2nd Amendment rights due to a non-violent felony I hope if SCOTUS takes a 2nd Amendment case it pertains to something more pressing such as carry outside the home or the ability to own so-called assault rifles and hi-capacity magazines.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/us/supreme-court-barrett-gun-rights.html

Click to expand...

“But it does support the proposition that the state can take the right to bear arms away from a category of people that it deems dangerous.”

Click to expand...

I think those 'felons', convicted of non violent crimes SHOULD be given 'normal' citizen status after they have paid their debt to society..Voting, Jury duty, public office and RBKA..BUT..'dangerous'..sounds like a RFL to me.

This nibbling around the edges. They need to take cases that negate state bans, forbid Federal bans, make easy shall issue rather than may issue the law of land and get rid of some things like SBR, HPA, issues. Roberts screwed that up. Let's hope they can do it in the near future.

Also, no ambiguity or waffling like the prose that poisoned Heller.

I am sure she is a very fine lawyer and inclines to support my interests, but really, have you got a decade and several million dollars to get a case in front of her?

The Torres v. US case (non-violent felon rights) is scheduled for conference on Dec 11. Don't hold your breath. Often these conferences get postponed. "Conference" is where the justices discuss among themselves whether the case has enough merit to proceed. So even if they do proceed with the case, it still has a long way to go.

That is the problem. I don't have a decade left. It is a lesson that 'conservative' Roberts screwed us. Here's another take: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/b...nd-amendment-case-is-a-matter-of-when-not-if/

An interesting snippet:

Mr. Blackman said, though, that it could take years for a newly filed case to work its way up.

He said the court might be more likely to take up a case that turns on a question of gun rights for the mentally ill or incapacitated, rather than more hot-button issues of constitutional protections for assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

Mr. Blackman pointed to the Mai v. United States case, which involves a man who was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital when he was 17 years old and whether he should thereby lose his Second Amendment rights.

“I think that might be an attractive vehicle because it’s not trying to give people the right to have AR-15s and give people the right to expanded-capacity magazines — it’s about mental health,” he said.

Click to expand...

So if that's the case, it's who give a crap again. Now, maybe it would be good if Biden and a Democratic Congress passed a draconian ban. That might get them off their robed butts and glacial pace.

Obviously, I would prefer that not to be the case and they take a real case soon and not some peripheral issue.

Yes, you're correct about the Chief Justice, who is the person who's going to have final say on if and when. That's why I've labelled SCOTUS as the acronym for the "Spineless Court of the United States" with no disrespect to any other of the justices, just to the Chief Justice.

I would like to see SCOTUS decisions that work to smooth out the patchwork of state laws that conflict with each other. Or voluntary mental health treatment not be a bar to ownership. Not whether nonviolent felons should have firearms.

Anecdotal case but a close friend of my wife's was charged with a child negligence felony, and thus cannot own a firearm. That was the pleaded down charge, as they didn't have enough physical evidence to prove repeated sexual abuse. I would never want this person to legally own a firearm.

Well, that's a problem with lesser-jurisidictional courts accepting pleas for lesser offenses in return for a conviction. That's not a problem with the law. That's a problem with enforcement of the law. We're discussing problems with the law that might be rectified by the Supreme Court of the land.

Let me know when they take a real RKBA case.....

The Last Outlaw said:

Let me know when they take a real RKBA case.....

Click to expand...

Well, the Torres v. US is a "real" RKBA case in the sense it does involve the Second Amendment, and it is a case they have taken, it's just not a case that's up to the stage where they begin hearing oral arguments from the two parties. If I may include a self-promotion, check my sig line and follow the link there to the site's Resources section for a reference to Supreme Court 2A cases.

GEM said:

They need to take cases that negate

Click to expand...

Somebody has to have either the willpower or deep enough pockets to press those cases up the chain.
Not the SC's job to take cases that "ought to be heard"--they already get thousands of cases presented to them, and have time for only about 200 per year.

Now, Torres could get interesting. The history of Prohibited Person status is only 50 years old--part of GCA 68. The US lumbered along for about two centuries not banning freed felons from owning arms.

If an argument is advanced that non-violent felons retain some rights must needs invite examining whether all felons might retain rights, too. Which means we could cast doubt on the entire portion of the law creating Prohibited Persons in its entirety.

"We" can also hope that cracking open GCA 68, we might examine other portions of that statute. Like does the Federal Government have the right to bar ownership by virtue of age?

This could also be tricky--suppose the Court holds that fed.gov cannot abridge the right to keep and bear arms; but that then devolves upon the States, themselves, to determine.

"Somebody has to have either the willpower or deep enough pockets to press those cases up the chain."

Or a legal Champion.

And I think in most cases you have to have actually broken the law. Arrested, tried, and convicted. A long process right there, let alone spending the time and money to take it through the lesser Courts and up to SCOTUS. The expression "You can do the time, but you can't do the ride" comes to mind.

The real solution? Elect legislators who have a genuine respect for the Constitution and their oaths of office and won't write or vote for patently unconstitutional laws in the first place.

"Fat chance, Terry. Most people seem to vote with their bellies."

Yeah, I know. But it's a pleasant dream.

Only a dream.

Terry, 230RN

230RN said:

The real solution? Elect legislators who have a genuine respect for the Constitution

Terry, 230RN

Click to expand...

There are alot of braindead people (voters) out there that dont give a tinkers damn about the constitution. They think nothing of the revolutionary fighters and citizens that made this country what it was and maybe just have a fleeting image of a bunch of guys wearing funny clothes and tricorn hats drafted up a useless document that serves no purpose in the modern world.

No sense of civic duty to uphold and respect the Constitution, it's all about what's good for "me". Not what's good for my country. Also, there seems to be a growing trend to reject patriotism. There are millions who would sooner burn or trample the flag than fly it......

I think if you look back historically in the United States, most of our enumerated rights have been either ignored or eviscerated by the courts. They have allowed government to pretty much do as it pleases. That should not surprise anybody because they are part of government

Pretending that the courts are some independent body that is going to look at these issues fairly and decide the issues solely on what the Constitution actually says, are pretty much dreaming. It has never been that way and it probably never will be.

Chances are most people aren't really going to like when they have to give up social security and Medicare and various other government programs that just aren't authorized by the Constitution, if Judges started ruling based on what the Constitution actually says.

I would be against restoring rights removed from felons regardless of the crime. To be convicted of a felony is no small thing and in the least shows poor judgement on the felons part. Some people never grow up and proven bad thinking processes combined with a gun, not a good mix.

3Crows said:

....To be convicted of a felony is no small thing ....regardless of the crime....

Click to expand...

(my transposition for effect)

There are some felonies that are "small things" in the eyes of most people where no other persons or their properties are harmed and are felonies only in the sense that they're defined that way by how the law governing that particular transgression was written, passed and signed into law.

For example, there was a time when to be caught with a small amount of marijuana for your own personal use was a felony in the eyes of the law and if you had been convicted of that back in those days today you would still be a convicted felon and you would still be denied your Constitutional rights because of that conviction on your permanent record.

Various personal behaviors were felonies at one time. The real issue is whether the court will stop with the peripheral cases and take a case with some central RKBA issues. Oblique, indirect cases do us no good.

3Crows said:

I would be against restoring rights removed from felons regardless of the crime. To be convicted of a felony is no small thing and in the least shows poor judgement on the felons part. Some people never grow up and proven bad thinking processes combined with a gun, not a good mix.

Click to expand...

I think saying "felons shouldn't own guns" sounds good. It seems to make sense and I'm sure most people agree with it without giving it much thought. But if you give it much thought you might possibly conclude that "poor judgement" or becoming a non violent felon is a pretty broad metric to use to determine whether somebody is stripped of fundamental right for life. RKBA should be evaluated on a case by case basis when a judge is considering sentancing guidelines based on your crime. Not just a default mechanism that happens automatically when charged with a crime.

On its face it's hard to argue with, but I consider stripping someone's RKBA indefinitely to be a harsh sentance that should be considered carefully on a case by case basis. You can rack up quite a few DUI's including felony DUI's before your DL gets suspended indefinitely.

3Crows said:

I would be against restoring rights removed from felons regardless of the crime. To be convicted of a felony is no small thing and in the least shows poor judgement on the felons part. Some people never grow up and proven bad thinking processes combined with a gun, not a good mix.

Click to expand...

Depends on the jurisdiction and what you consider “small” I guess. For example around here 3rd conviction for driving without a license is a felony, but it takes 4 DUIs.

There are a huge number of people in this country that can’t get a license due to residency status, but who we definitely need to show up for work if we enjoy eating and don’t care to be subsistence farmers.

I appreciate that thinking but it is rather to my point. Those people who were caught with a substance (which I think should be legalized) knew full well it was illegal and a felony and that is bad judgement exercised, or habitually driving without a DL or collecting DUIs. It is not a perfect world and the law is never going to be perfect, sometimes it is best not to do something so as to prevent getting caught up in the gears of the legal system. Restraint and judgement. Shades of grey, incrementalism, this is, that is not. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I will leave it to those smarter than me to set that line. Restore rights to one felon but not another? Some people are lawbreakers. Short of having a court review each case, who is going to determine merit? Breaking the law has consequences, who knew!

SCOTUS is not

CapnMac said:

Somebody has to have either the willpower or deep enough pockets to press those cases up the chain.
Not the SC's job to take cases that "ought to be heard"--they already get thousands of cases presented to them, and have time for only about 200 per year.

Now, Torres could get interesting. The history of Prohibited Person status is only 50 years old--part of GCA 68. The US lumbered along for about two centuries not banning freed felons from owning arms.

If an argument is advanced that non-violent felons retain some rights must needs invite examining whether all felons might retain rights, too. Which means we could cast doubt on the entire portion of the law creating Prohibited Persons in its entirety.

"We" can also hope that cracking open GCA 68, we might examine other portions of that statute. Like does the Federal Government have the right to bar ownership by virtue of age?

This could also be tricky--suppose the Court holds that fed.gov cannot abridge the right to keep and bear arms; but that then devolves upon the States, themselves, to determine.

Click to expand...

The US had numerous laws on the books prior to the '68 GCA banning certain people from owning firearms after conviction. It was just on the State Level. Also, the '34 NFA made it illegal for felons convicted of a violent crime to own a gun. The '68 GCA expanded it to all felonies.

Again, prior to the GCA and NFA, States decided who can and can't own a firearm if they were a felon.

3Crows said:

I would be against restoring rights removed from felons regardless of the crime. To be convicted of a felony is no small thing and in the least shows poor judgement on the felons part. Some people never grow up and proven bad thinking processes combined with a gun, not a good mix.

Click to expand...

It is a felony in FL to work in construction without proof of worker's compensation insurance coverage or an exemption.

So if you're single man operation like "Bob's Drywall" and you're patching a wall in a house for a client and the FL Bureau of Workers Compensation Compliance does a jobsite inspection because they see your '02 Dodge Panel Van with your magnet sign affixed to the side. They stop and conduct a check in the system and you have no proof on your person of coverage or the filed exemption, they cite you a Stop Work Order.

Congratulations, you just committed a felony and lost your 2nd Amendment Rights.

Hope you enjoy never legally owning a firearm again for showing "poor judgement".

GEM said:

Various personal behaviors were felonies at one time. The real issue is whether the court will stop with the peripheral cases and take a case with some central RKBA issues. Oblique, indirect cases do us no good.

Click to expand...

The idea of fancy robed lawyers being the arbiter of liberty or despotism is a sign of how screwed we really are. Plus, the Court will not be "Conservative" for long and it isn't because Biden is going to pack it. Clarence Thomas is 72 and Samuel Alito is 70. Neither are spring chickens and both are reaching the point where they can kick the bucket for whatever reason. Hell, Thomas has stated a number of times he'd like to retire.

3Crows said:

I appreciate that thinking but it is rather to my point. Those people who were caught with a substance (which I think should be legalized) knew full well it was illegal and a felony and that is bad judgement exercised, or habitually driving without a DL or collecting DUIs. It is not a perfect world and the law is never going to be perfect, sometimes it is best not to do something so as to prevent getting caught up in the gears of the legal system. Restraint and judgement. Shades of grey, incrementalism, this is, that is not. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I will leave it to those smarter than me to set that line. Restore rights to one felon but not another? Some people are lawbreakers. Short of having a court review each case, who is going to determine merit? Breaking the law has consequences, who knew!

Click to expand...

In my example of FL's insurance requirement and failure to do so being a felony. It is unknown by most people. John Q Public goes into business as a handyman. No one tells him that not having an exemption or not having coverage is a felony. The state doesn't even if he decides to incorporates and forms a sole proprietorship, LLC, or a corporation. That's all done under the State Department and they don't touch insurance coverage requirements. The issue of insurance is done under the Department of Financial Services. Something that the handyman will not deal with unless he is confronted by them. The State Department doesn't have a pamphlet or info about the coverage requirements since it isn't their jurisdiction.

The homeowner sure doesn't know when he hires that handyman to do a simple repair job like patch the hole i drywall from where the kid flung the door wide open and while he's there he fixes a leaky pipe and install a dimmer switch. Guess what... that's all a felony for the handyman that doesn't have coverage.

As a LEO, there is soooooooo much stuff on the books that it is laughably difficult to explain. Stuff that you probably do and didn't even realize is a felony.

Lavrentiy Beria said it best. “Show me the man and I'll find you the crime.” We very much are in a similar situation.