Does the Second Amendment protect non-violent felons?

[JohnPierce]

The answer, according to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, is “No”.

The court ruled today against Thomas Pocian, who, in 1986, was convicted of felony forgery. Subsequently, in 2008, Pocian shot two deer with a rifle borrowed from his father. After reporting the deer to the DNR, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Wisconsin Statute § 941.29. The trial court convicted Pocian and he appealed based upon both constitutional overbreadth and as-applied challenges to the statute.

(Excerpt) Read more

 

[bikemutt]

Sounds to me like the guy whistled past the graveyard, in this case there really was a ghost out to get him.

Unless he had something from the court unequivocally stating ALL his civil rights were restored, including his right to possess firearms, he took a risk, and was discovered. My only hope for him is his lawyer took the unlawful possession case pro bono just to make a point.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Does the Second Amendment protect non-violent felons?

No. A felony (violent or not) removes your right to vote and own/be in possession of firearms.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

No. Life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness can be taken away after due process.

 

[230therapy]

Yes, it should protect their rights. My view is they should not be let out if they're still violent. Instead we have a revolving door policy.

We have created a permanent sub-class with these laws. They prevent people who have paid for their non-violent felony from getting good middle class jobs. I am not certain how this affects business loans.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Yes, it should protect their rights. My view is they should not be let out if they're still violent

Not what he asked.


Let's not get this started again....we just had a thread on this subject closed.

The answer has been given.....let's let this one die.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

The thing is, he didn't ask if it should protect them. He asked if it did, and the aswer to that is, no. I have my opinions, but that's not what the question was.

 

[Jeff H]

Does the Second Amendment protect non-violent felons?

I don't believe it is actually addressed in the 2nd amendment, but only in the court's or legislature's interpretation.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Davek1977]

While the "shoulds" and "coulds" can make this an emotional issue, the simple answer is that, under Federal statute, felons do not have the right to bear arms.

 

[RatDrall]

The 2nd Amendment is clear, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness can be taken away after due process.

Innate, God Given Rights don't apply to our loljustice system.

 

[Davek1977]

Innate, God Given Rights don't apply to our loljustice system.

Apparently those tasked with making such distinctions....the Unioted States Supreme Court....disagree with your viewpoint on this subject. Don't want your rights infringed, don't be a felon...otherwise your "rights" are up for grabs.

 

[Sam1911]

As said, we just did a long thread on whether "ex"-felons should be prohibited from possessing firearms, and which felons, and so on. Let's not do that one again.

As the original question stands, there doesn't seem to be any debate at all. Current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the GCA-'68 says felons do NOT have 2nd Amendment rights anywhere in the US.

So that's that.