Lawyer: Heller Says Felons Can Have Guns At Home For Protection

[Ivy Mike]

I think you're reading into it a bit too far. Due Process as I was speaking of is the method that was outlined in our constitution to both protect the rights of the law abiding and provide for their removal from those who have shown themselves unfit to live in civilized society.

I also think you're a bit too concerned with Democrats and gun legislation. The Democrats have learned quite well that when they push it, they find themselves unemployed.

 

[gc70]

I also think you're a bit too concerned with Democrats and gun legislation. The Democrats have learned quite well that when they push it, they find themselves unemployed.

Pelosi, Feinstien, Kennedy, Schumer, and Lautenburg have not been unemployed due to their gun control efforts. The only thing lacking in their continuing efforts to promote gun control has been enough Democrats in Congress to produce a veto-proof majority.

 

[Picard]

We shouldn't assume that because we deny a felon the legal right to own a firearm, that he is now never going to have access to them.

Looking at how many firearms are illegally owned, why on earth would one think that a felon would not be able to get his hands on one.

In fact, we should assume the opposite. If a person is released from prison, we should assume (correctly, mind you) that he will have access to firearms. Therefore, if a person is still a threat to society with a firearm, he should not be released, until he is no longer a threat.

Also, this further goes along with the idea that firearms are the worst things out there and without them, there would be no killings. A felon could just as easily use another weapon to commit a violent crime.

All in all, a threat to society is still a threat whether he has access to firearms or not, so why deny these "free" men the right to self defense if we allow them to walk among us freely. Denying them the RKBA is just another "feel good" law.

 

[oldfart]

Wasn't there a case where an ex-con was under attack by some bad guys and he picked up a gun to defend himself? If my memory serves me, the court held that what he did was perfectly proper and no-billed him.

Anybody?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In fact, we should assume the opposite. If a person is released from prison, we should assume (correctly, mind you) that he will have access to firearms. Therefore, if a person is still a threat to society with a firearm, he should not be released, until he is no longer a threat.

The United States already imprisons more people than any other country in the world (including China and Russia). Some 4.7 million people are on probation or parole and another 2.3 million were imprisoned as of 2005.

So for everybody in the "Don't release them until it is safe" category:

Assuming that only 2 million of those 4.7 million on probation or parole will ever reoffend, you only need to double the existing prison infrastructure to reach your goal.

Of course if we stopped imprisoning people for silly crimes, we would probably be better off; but the fact of the matter is that around 7 million people have come into contact with our penal system as a resident. Even those punished for non-violent felonies that many of us probably feel should not even be illegal will have spent many years in a prison system dominated by the men who do commit the type of violent felonies that would lead to execution.

If tomorrow we just released all the non-violent victims of the war on drugs (you know, just the ones who were driving around while under the influence, stealing from pharmacies, committing burglaries to feed their habit) and said "You are now full-citizens with voting and gun rights." - How well do you think that would work?

 

[leadcounsel]

Ever take a prescription drug (such as a borrowed muscle relaxer from your wife) that wasn't yours? You're a felon!

 

[JERRY]

China and Russia imprison fewer people than the U.S.A. because they deal with thier convicts in strict form, thus a true deterent to crime is known, unlike the U.S.A. with its coddling effect of the criminals and the lax punishment, no hard labor, non existant death penalty in many states, .....there simply is not much of a deternt for criminals to worry about here, unlike over "there" where they would be dealt with properly.....not that thier systems is the best, but it is far better than ours in dealing with drug dealers, rapists, child molesters, murderers, bank robbers....ours i better for dealing with shoplifters and tax cheats.....in fact thats how we deal with even the most violent criminals.....

 

[whosyrdaddy]

If tomorrow we just released all the non-violent victims of the war on drugs (you know, just the ones who were driving around while under the influence, stealing from pharmacies, committing burglaries to feed their habit) and said "You are now full-citizens with voting and gun rights." - How well do you think that would work?

It seemed to work quite well up until very recently when such restrictions were implemented as an unnecessary solution to a nonexistent problem.
In fact, it was SOP in times gone by to give a felon a horse, a gun, and some $ upon his release.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Ever take a prescription drug (such as a borrowed muscle relaxer from your wife) that wasn't yours? You're a felon!

Not unless you were charged, arrested, given a trial by a jury of your peers and convicted.

 

[brickeyee]

Scalia explicitly addressed this as an allowable restriction in the ruling.
The case will get tossed very quickly.

 

[Ivy Mike]

gc70

and why do you think they don't have a majority?
Because the more freedom minded folks in this country have seen fit to toss reps out on their tails. It happened after the passage of the AWB and the ban was almost removed a couple years later.

 

[akodo]

as a felon you loose a lot of individual rights. You can no longer vote, you can no longer legally associate with certain people, etc etc. You can no longer own a gun.

The fact that a felon can legally be denied the individual right to vote does not mean that the right to vote must really be a collective right.

substitution of 'right to vote' with 'right to own guns' does not change the voracity of that statement at all.

 

[whosyrdaddy]

as a felon you loose a lot of individual rights. You can no longer vote, you can no longer legally associate with certain people, etc etc. You can no longer own a gun.

Many felons are only barred from voting as long as they are incarcerated. Many felons can legally associate with anyone they like after they have served their sentence. Many felons can legally own guns.

0 for 3, but hey you were close.

 

[caseypj]

Felons able to vote and own guns? That would be a huge mistake, we can deprive them of their rights through due process, if we cannot take away their right to vote or own a firearm, can we put them to death? I'd think not, this will be thrown out.

 

[Bushwhacker]

Many felons can legally own guns.

How? Where?
Federal law states that no one can own or buy a firearm that's been convicted of a felony.....

 

[whosyrdaddy]

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a7

A7) How can a person apply for relief from Federal firearms disabilities? [Back]


Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. The GCA provides the Attorney General with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Attorney General determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Attorney General delegated this authority to ATF.

Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g), 922(n) and 925(c)]



(A8) Are there any alternatives for relief from firearms disabilities? [Back]


A person is not considered convicted for Gun Control Act purposes if he has been pardoned, had his civil rights restored, or the conviction was expunged or set aside, unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration expressly provides the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Persons convicted of a Federal offense may apply for a Presidential pardon. 28 CFR 1.1-1.10 specify the rules governing petitions for obtaining Presidential pardons. You may contact the Pardon Attorney's Office at the U.S. Department of Justice, 500 First Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20530, to inquire about the procedures for obtaining a Presidential pardon.

Persons convicted of a State offense may contact the State Attorney General's Office within the State in which they reside and the State of their conviction for information concerning any alternatives that may be available, such as pardons and civil rights restoration.

[18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) and (a)(33)]

( emp. added )

 

[TAB]

if they have had thier records fixed, they are no longer felons...

 

[yokel]

Since the Democrats really believe that felons constitute a minority group that deserve special favors, e.g. voting rights, why not propose rules that would allow any convict who is not imprisoned or waiting to serve a prison sentence to have guns to defend hearth and home?

Felons overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

 

[gc70]

Clean97GTI
and why do you think they don't have a majority?

The Democrats have a majority in Congress, but not a large enough majority for the anti-gun leadership to count on passing new gun control laws after some of their fellow Democrats refuse to vote for such laws. The larger the Democratic majority in Congress, the more likely it is that the leadership will be able to get enough votes.

Gun control is not the only issue that the majority of voters (even gun-owning voters) think about when choosing between Democratic and Republican candidates.

 

[whosyrdaddy]

if they have had thier records fixed, they are no longer felons...

Having their rights restored does not "fix" their record. They are still convicted felons.

 

[whosyrdaddy]

Felons overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

And just what do you think the reason for this phenomena is?

 

[yokel]

When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, disenfranchising characteristics such as criminal activity disproportionally affects minorities.

Rectifying this would be moving in the correct direction on our journey toward social justice and racial equality.

 

[ctdonath]

Heller noted that felons may - as in "we're not going to address it now, and for the moment will defer to established cultural norms, until a real case with that focus arises" - be restricted. That subject, along with many others, were relegated to rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

 

[IA_farmboy]

I am of the mind that allowing a person the freedom to own a home but not the freedom to defend it is borderline cruel and unusual punishment. Once a felon is released from prison their right to self defense needs to be restored. Just because a person broke the law does not mean they won't be a victim at some future time.

Those of criminal intent are not deterred by bans to own firearms. They get them anyway. Even if the laws were effective a criminal does not need a firearm to kill, assault, intimidate, steal, rape, etc., etc.

A felon that has been reformed and has respect for the law has had a very effective tool of self defense removed from them. If they do not have criminal intent then why bar the use of a firearm for lawful purposes?

If a person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm then they cannot be trusted with curling irons, scissors, automobiles, or pipe wrenches. They need to remain in jail.

 

[Sharps-shooter]

Regardless of the justness of the law about felons being unable to possess guns, this sounds to me like a lawyer bringing up a case without much hope; fine for him, bad for his client.

As far as why we imprison more people than China and Russia-- having been to both places myself-- I would say it's not because the laws there are more of a deterrent to crime. In the areas I was in, crime was rampant. Law enforcement, on the other hand, was not rampant; It was nearly non-existent, and where it did exist, it was bought and sold by local gangs. This was all in Remote places like Siberia and Xinjiang, but I heard things were similar in places like Beijing and Moskva.