Convicted Felon Tests Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
1,541
Location
Under a rock somewhere
Was browsing New York law, trying to figure out if a convicted felon with a Youthful Offender record could own a firearm when I came across this article from December.

http://www.nysun.com/article/68607?page_no=1

Convicted Felon Tests Second Amendment
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 27, 2007

With the U.S. Supreme Court set to decide whether the Second Amendment gives law-abiding citizens the right to keep a handgun at home, a convicted felon in New York decided to test his luck.

The inmate, Damon Lucky, isn't law-abiding. Nor did the gun he was convicted of possessing stay in his home. Still, Lucky decided to "see how far we can ride this pony," his lawyer, Harry Batchelder Jr., said, referring to the federal judiciary's apparent willingness to examine gun control laws critically.

So this month, Mr. Batchelder, asked a federal judge in Brooklyn to answer "yes" to a question that makes many staunch gun owners uneasy: Does the Second Amendment give convicted felons the right to carry handguns?

Current federal law prevents felons from keeping a firearm. Lucky, already a felon twice over, was convicted this year of violating that law. His court motion seeks to have that conviction tossed out on the grounds that the law violates the Second Amendment.

At its essence, the question before the Supreme Court in an upcoming case is whether the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns or grants only a collective right to form militias.

Even some proponents of the individual rights position say the Second Amendment allows for some gun control, like laws that prevent felons from owning firearms.

Mr. Batchelder conceded that the motion is a long shot. Still, few defendants in gun possession cases in New York ever raise a Second Amendment argument.

Except for Lucky, Mr. Batchelder said, "they all go away quietly."

It's possible, several lawyers say, that Lucky's case is the only challenge currently in court in New York City claiming that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to own a gun.

Mr. Batchelder, an ex-military man, described Lucky as "the recon scout for the Second Amendment."

Lucky, who is currently being held in Manhattan's federal jail, the Metropolitan Correctional Center, faces up to 10 years in prison if Judge David Trager of U.S. District Court rejects the motion.

Lucky's latest arrest came in 2004 after police pulled over the truck he was driving and found a handgun in his waistband. Officers had been on the lookout for the vehicle because, a few days earlier, a firefighter claimed to have seen a man get out of the truck and fire a gun at a group of people near the intersection of Park Place and Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn.

Prosecutors say Lucky's criminal record dates back to May 1992, when, at age 19, he shot a man. Then, in September of that year, police found him in possession of two handguns and a small amount of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to six years and released after four and a half.

In Lucky's legal motion, Mr. Batchelder refers to the gun rights advocates as "Paineists," and the gun control advocates as "Stalinist collectivists." Yet the lawyer says he personally favors gun control.

"But my personal views have nothing to do with what I advocate," Mr. Batchelder said. "Otherwise, I wouldn't be advocating for too many people."
 
I have appointed myself resident idiot so I will comment on anything. Lots and lots of two cents to throw around.

Get a felony conviction for crimes against persons lose your 2nd amendment right for a long long time. Prove rehabilitation then legally petition for restoration. That is the way it works now isn't it?

IMHO (remember that wealth of spare lincolns) too many crimes are labeled FELONY. A fancy smancy white collar criminal is not necessarily the threat this thug is.

Paineists? I have been called a dick before but never a Paineist.

Lucky? Bogus? Dellinger? Some of the names cropping up in this RKBA storm are just too funny. All the time Dellinger was arguing all I could think of was John Dillinger the famous tommy gun toting bank robber. To me there is irony that Dillinger and his ilk got gun control rolling and Dellinger is putting up his lame argument to keep it alive.
 
IMHO (remember that wealth of spare lincolns) too many crimes are labeled FELONY. A fancy smancy white collar criminal is not necessarily the threat this thug is.

There's a problem with this: The guy in question IS a thug!

At 19 he shot someone. Later the same year was found in possession of guns and crack. They stopped him because they believed him to be a suspect in an aggravated assault with a handgun and guess what? He's carrying knowing fully that doing so is illegal.

White collar criminals not a threat? Tell me that when one embezzles your retirement fund and leaves you nearly penniless in your old age, or steals your identity and you can't even get a bank account, a phone or even utilities without $1,000 bucks for a security deposit.

A felon is a felon is a felon is a felon. The recidivism rates tell the entire story.
 
I'd like to know if everyone is "Ok" with you being able to lose your other "Rights" because your convicted of a crime?

Embezzle some money.....serve your 5 year sentence.....then "sorry dude, you no longer have the Right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches.....etc"

The real & hard question before us should be....do we truly lose our Rights just because we were convicted of a crime? It's amazing that I've never heard of any criminal losing their other "Rights" enumerated in the Bill of Rights...only the 2nd..
 
Get a felony conviction for crimes against persons lose your 2nd amendment right for a long long time. Prove rehabilitation then legally petition for restoration. That is the way it works now isn't it?

No, that is not how it works.

Under current Federal Law (GCA of '68 IIRC) felons lose their rights but can appeal. Unfortunetly the US Congress deleted the funding for the ATF appeal section. So no appeals. None.

USSC ruled that was legal, the mechanism is set up, it is just too bad that noone can use it. All completely legal :cuss::banghead::mad::fire:

NukemJim
 
that would either make jails a lot more quiet and calm...or a lot more bloody

and you couldnt rely have guards there either...what if they got shot at`?
 
My personal feeling is that only violent felons should lose their gun rights, not people convicted for digging oysters without a permit or writing a bad check for $250.
 
I think a free man is a free man. While incarcerated they are not free men.
Once released they are. Yes the implications of a career thug purchasing a firearm is bad. However the individual that makes a mistake, serves the thier time, and is released, can drive a car, can handle or control numerous dangerous things, can could get a firearm illegaly should be able to have one legaly.

Most criminals are not released directly, they are parolled and serve lengthy amounts of time not free men, without thier rights on parole. So its not like they would just get out and qualify right away anyways.

If a person who does something the government has labeled a crime cannot have the right which is granted to defend against a tyranical government, then the right does not exist. The very entity the 2nd exists to protect against can label you unfit to have that right?
Tell me that is not backwards.

That does not mean I want violent criminals to have guns. I would rather naively enjoy the security and belief that something I can legaly have will allow me to overcome a criminal that cannot legaly have something of equal capability.
I however realize I am in America, a place built on freedom and liberty, being tough and brave. That sometimes what I want and what is right and protects freedom under the constitution are two different things.
So I do think the constitution allows any free man to have arms, regardless of thier past conduct if they are once again free men.
Consider also that is the way it was for most of America's history, until 1968, and in reality until the Brady check in the 90's that enforced it at purchase.
America did just fine prior to that. America was a beacon of freedom and liberty throughout the world prior to that. It didn't make America greater, it simply provided a great avenue for tyranny to permanently disarm any who disagree with it.
 
A person is convicted of a crime.

The sentence might be life in prison, no possibility of parole. That person will never have certain rights back, such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right of free speech, freedom of assembly, etc etc.

If a person sentenced to life without chance of parole can have his 2nd amendment right removed, so can a person sentenced to 1 day in jail.

It is not the length of sentence, it is the fact that the person is a CONVICTED CRIMINAL

Now, I think that we have to be careful about how totally we restrict someone's rights. Just as it is wrong to throw someone in jail for 20 years for shoplifting (note, it is not illegal, or unconstitutional to have extreme penalties for crimes) I believe it is also wrong for certian non-violent crimes or even low violent crimes to fully strip a person's RKBA forever. But they are on the same par, deciding reasonable amount of jail time, and deciding reasonable about of loss of RKBA.
 
The loss of all kinds of basic rights because of a felony conviction has been upheld over and over again. Unless your status changes to non-felon at some point those penalties can remain in whole or partial effect and probably will.
 
I'm with Zoogster. Free is free.

Crack dealers get out of jail and go back to selling crack. Gang-bangers get out and go back to gang-banging. They very likely aquire firearms within hours of release anyway, as they get back into their profession of choice. We may as well collect a few tax dollars from the sale of a new Hi-Point.

Ramp up the consequences for crime. If they use a gun in a crime, hang them from the gallows in the Towne Square. Stop criminalizing behavior that does not, in and of itself, hurt anyone.

Don't felons lose their voting rights also?
 
I think this is a really bad time for this case to come up.

Don't want it muddying the water with the DC. vs. Heller case.


And instead of maybe getting a clear "Individual" decision, getting an "Individual" decision with the added "reasonable regulations" tacked on.
 
Once their prison sentence is finished (including parole) they become a free person. At this point they are deemed safe to be a part of society without restrictions. If they are “safe for society” as declared by the courts why should they not have their rights as a citizen? If they are not “safe for society” (as restricting their rights would suggest) then why are they out of prison????!!!!
 
The problem is with the legal system.. Notice I did not say Justice system. There are way to many laws on the books. Too many felonies. Too many are written so they can force a plea bargin. No one cares about all these laws. The lawyers play with them and with each other and the Judges play with other peoples lives. It really does not have to be this way and in a FREE country one would think our system could be set up for and by the people instead of a chess game for lawyers.
 
Mr. Lucky should still be in prison from his earliest conviction for shooting a man. 4-1/2 years for attempted murder? That right there ain't right. A criminal shouldn't be on the street if he's a danger to society.

Therefore, if they let him out, he's not a danger to society, right? Then he has the same right to live his life as you and me.
 
I agree with a lot of posts here. Once you are out of jail you should have ALL of your rights. If you can’t be trusted, then they should not let you out.

Anyone who supports felons (now even people with misdemeanors) losing their gun rights needs to read the laws determining what is considered a felony (or prohibiting offense) and how many trivial offenses will cause you to loose your 2A. In general, if you end up in criminal court, you will loose your 2A.

I hope this man succeeds. If he does, it will be a lot easier for non “thug” felons to do the same. I think the NRA should be paying for his lawyers (the ACLU would if it was not gun related). These are battles that we need to fight and win.

To compromise (I know, it is an evil word). If anything, only people who commit a crime with a firearm should loose their 2A and only for a short period of time.
 
I am on the side of free is free. Do your sentence, gain your rights. If you dont want someone to gain his rights, parole him for 50 years.

If not, then a tyrannical government will make every man a felon in order to deprive him of rights.

A felon is not a felon is not a felon. The white collar criminal who scammed someone out of a million might be a scumbag, but if he did not use force on another person than he is not, in my book, in the same class as a killer/rapist/armed robber. Ask yourself if you would rather live next to the guy passing bad checks or the guy convicted of brutally raping a woman the age of your daughter or wife.

The guy in this story IS a bad guy. The object of his sentence should be to put him on probation/parole for 30 years. If he completes 30 years without incident, he deserves his gun rights. 5 years isnt enough and 10 years isnt enough. But the day he has done his time, he should be free. Otherwise, he hasnt done his time.
 
I'm not entirely on the free is free side. I don't think that people who have violated trust should automatically have their previous status restored. I don't think Martha Stewart should be able to sit on the board of a publicly traded company. I don't think Bill Clinton should get his law license back.

I would submit that the consequence should fit the action, meaning that, (as previously stated) violent felons should not be trusted with deadly force, financial criminals should not be trusted with finances, political criminals should not be trusted with politics. There comes a time when the public interest must allow for common sense to not get burned twice. (Or more.)
 
If you dont want someone to gain his rights, parole him for 50 years.
I wouldn't say I agree with that either. That would just be another way around it. Parole should not exceed a percentage of the sentence, if done at all.
All that would result in is people getting double the sentence people felt was appropriate to do exactly as you say, parole them indefinately after serving the length of the sentence originaly felt appropriate.

Instead people should serve the amount of time society deems appropriate prior to rejoining society.

Telling someone they must move into a suitable low income area with high crime rates (what they will be able to afford with thier record, and likely lack of experience or skills), and can never be able to legaly protect themselves (against local thugs armed with firearms) is essentialy telling them to just expect to disregard the law from the start. That is a bad place to start from if you really want them to successfuly rejoin society.
If puting them on the streets to commit a new crime and then puting back behind bars is the goal, and puting them out there just a formality in that process, then its a fine place to start.
It gets them accustomed to breaking the law for basic needs, and insures they are already aware the law and thier needs will never mix from the start. Thier law breaking can escalate from there.


However it all goes a step further. It is not about what rights we want and do not want other citizens that are free men and women to have. It is about what has made America the land of the free for hundreds of years. Sometimes liberty and freedom has some difficulties, but that does not excuse undermining the constitution to make it easier. There is a large portion of society that we could benefit from by denying them various rights. Negative subcultures we could remove, and ideologies we could prohibit. We could remove what makes America great, to make America better! :rolleyes:
It is a bad idea.

The front lines of our rights and liberties are always fought through those who are undesirables. People you or I may not like, and even people that deserve serious punishment. We must still know how to uphold those things which have made us a unique and great nation.
 
Too dangerous to own a gun = too dangerous to be on the streets. If he's safe enough to release, he's safe enough to have a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top