Relying heavily on N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, a state court judge has ruled Kentucky's law against felons possessing firearms is unconstitutional. Opinion and Order. The Commonwealth argued Bruen applied only to "law-abiding" citizens and that the defendant in the case had not been law-abiding. The judge basically said that portion of Bruen did not apply since it only dealt with a law-abiding citizens and not to non law-abiding citizens:
The Court disagreed with the Commonwealth's argument that the Second Amendment was a "civic right" dependent upon an individual's virtuousness. Instead, the Court stated:
Opinion at p. 4
The Court found that history and tradition supported its opinion that Second Amendment rights were not merely "civic rights."
Story from WDRB (linking to the Opinion and Order). Note, however, that a second article indicates that the Court may issue a supplemental order that might affect the procedural process of the case.
Opinion at p. 3.The Commonwealth first urges the Court to apply Bruen’s historical analysis in a different manner than Defendant altogether by arguing that Second Amendment protections apply only to “law-abiding citizens” as referenced in Bruen. However, this argument does not consider that the individuals in the Bruen case were in fact law-abiding – the issue of whether non law-abiding individuals received Second Amendment protections was not before the Court.
The Court disagreed with the Commonwealth's argument that the Second Amendment was a "civic right" dependent upon an individual's virtuousness. Instead, the Court stated:
This notion, however, is inconsistent with Heller. Heller implicitly rejected the concept that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right, instead assuring that the Second Amendment “confer an individual right to keep and bear arms,” 554 U.S. at 595 (emphasis by state court).
Opinion at p. 4
The Court found that history and tradition supported its opinion that Second Amendment rights were not merely "civic rights."
Opinion at pp. 5-6.Unlike the civic rights of voting and jury duty, states which protected the right to bear arms in their constitutions lacked any exception for criminals. By 1820, nine states had enshrined the right to bear arms in their constitution. See Eugene Volokh, State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 191, 208 (2006). Of those nine states, none had any exception for criminals, while seven explicitly excluded or authorized the exclusion of certain criminals from the right to vote. Id. Thus, there is no basis, historical or otherwise, which supports the idea that the right to bear arms was simply tied to whether the individual was virtuous or not.
Story from WDRB (linking to the Opinion and Order). Note, however, that a second article indicates that the Court may issue a supplemental order that might affect the procedural process of the case.
Last edited by a moderator: