NON-VIOLENT CRIMINALS KEEP RIGHTS

[papa61]

Sorry about the title. If someone has a better suggestion I'll change it.

US cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from owning guns-appeals court (msn.com)

[Darrell]

I wonder if that would include people convicted of selling drugs, or of committing fraud, or perhaps of gun trafficking? I think a lot of clarification is going to be required.

[Chucktshoes]

This is excellent news. 

[papa61]

1 hour ago, Darrell said:

I wonder if that would include people convicted of selling drugs, or of committing fraud, or perhaps of gun trafficking? I think a lot of clarification is going to be required.

Haven't read the judgement so I have to take the article at face value. Especially since the Government take defrauding the Government pretty seriously.

And I have always believed that anyone who can legally walk the streets should be able to arm themselves. trouble is, they let a lot of folks walk our streets that shouldn't be breathing our air.

Tell me, does a person who has completed their sentence have less value?

[Scotty]

I think there’s also a difference between owning and carrying. I’d imagine drug crimes and DUI will probably still DQ from carrying. 
 

https://thereload.com/federal-appeals-court-rules-second-amendment-protects-non-violent-felons-gun-rights/

Edited June 7, 2023 by Scotty
One of the better non MSM articles I found researching.

[Darrell]

10 hours ago, papa61 said:

Tell me, does a person who has completed their sentence have less value?

I'll leave the value judgement to others, but those who have committed crimes in the past don't deserve the trust that those of us who have been law-abiding enjoy.  I doubt that many who are convicted of committing a crime are caught on their first offense, and recidivism statistics show that those who get our of jail are likely to reoffend. 

[Smith]

It's this a pre-op for Biden? 

That being said, if you've done your time, you've done your time. When it's over, you're restored.

Make sentences mean something and quit all the early, plea, negotiating releases, and sentences, etc. That's just for politics anyway.

Do it and be done. It's idealistic but how I'd prefer it to be. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Smith

[deerslayer]

14 hours ago, papa61 said:

Tell me, does a person who has completed their sentence have less value?

People rarely complete their sentences.  

[Snaveba]

Yes they

Edited June 7, 2023 by Snaveba

[Worriedman]

All boils down to Bruen and the "New" test to be applied.  If there was a law on the books in 1791 you can use it, the further from that date a law is passed, the less value it has for scrutiny on 2nd or 14th Amendment issues.

The take away from this case is that the plaintiff is a member of the People, and as such his rights to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen.pdf

[Darrell]

11 minutes ago, Worriedman said:

The take away from this case is that the plaintiff is a member of the People, and as such his rights to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

Though I have read, re-read, and studied the Constitution, I'm anything but an expert. But conviction for the commission of a crime carries penalties that deprive the criminal of his rights. The most obvious is his right to liberty, but there are others as well. My personal take is that it's just fine with me if the penalty for certain crimes includes imprisonment, a fine, AND the forfeiture of the right to keep and bear arms. A person who commits armed robbery just once should never, ever be allowed to touch a firearm again, even after he's served his sentence. I also think that anyone who commits voter fraud should be forever stripped of their right to vote. I know, I'm a hard-ass in this respect, but it makes sense to me that the penalties for some crimes should be severe.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Darrell

[Worriedman]

16 hours ago, Darrell said:

Though I have read, re-read, and studied the Constitution, I'm anything but an expert. But conviction for the commission of a crime carries penalties that deprive the criminal of his rights. The most obvious is his right to liberty, but there are others as well. My personal take is that it's just fine with me if the penalty for certain crimes includes imprisonment, a fine, AND the forfeiture of the right to keep and bear arms. A person who commits armed robbery just once should never, ever be allowed to touch a firearm again, even after he's served his sentence. I also think that anyone who commits voter fraud should be forever stripped of their right to vote. I know, I'm a hard-ass in this respect, but it makes sense to me that the penalties for some crimes should be severe.

You have to read the Constitution AND the SCOTUS rulings.  Bruen says only those law on the books at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to scrutiny of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. (reiterated from Heller in 2008)

If you read the Opinion posted it tells you that government is constrained, the Constitution does not grant rights, it is a contract among the People and is a written set of hiring practices for the servants we need to hire to function government for us.  The Bill of Rights enumerates (or list) those rights we were granted by our creators and the government, neither the state or federal is that creator.  The Constitution places chains on government, not the People. 

This case sets about a study of what the laws were and what subsets of the People can be denied the right to keep and bear arms, and a nonviolent crime is not one that at the time of the ratification was a listed (test and history) limit.  Murder, rape, home invasion, armed robbery and the like were "capital" crimes and  were punishable by death.  If a lessor non violent crime were committed, once the sentence were served and any restitution paid back as decided by a court, the dues were paid and you were released back into society.  If so you got your voting rights and your gun rights back.  That is the "historical tradition" this panel of judges found with regard to a non violent crime and its after effects on a member of the People.

The more important part of the Opinion is that legislators and judges cannot deprive the People of those right over "feelings", thank goodness.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Worriedman

[Darrell]

What Bruen actually says is that  the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation. There has already been considerable confusion among the lower courts as to what, exactly, that means, and I'm confided that SCOTUS will have to revisit that decision. Lower courts are looking at exactly the same questions and coming to differing conclusions.

I agree with you that government does not grant rights, and have made that argument many times over. But the Bill of Rights only lists SOME of our rights, The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that any rights not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states or the people. 

Further, the Constitution has always allowed for penalties to deprive citizens of some or all of their rights. As you pointed out, capital crimes were punishable by death, which is the ultimate deprivation of rights.  And the Bruen decision mentions "law-abiding" citizens over thirty times.

At all events, we've not heard the end of this one.  Bruen was written to address New York's carry laws, and the court did a poor job of telling us how it applies to other situations. I'm sure it will be clarified further in the future.

 

[deerslayer]

4 hours ago, Worriedman said:

If a lessor non violent crime were committed, once the sentence were served and any restitution paid back as decided by a court, the dues were paid and you were released back into society. 

But the sentence is never served.  

[Worriedman]

32 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

But the sentence is never served.  

It is served or judicially abrogated, one of the too.  There are a a lot of 'diversions" granted by judges, but the courts count it settled through probation or whatever is put for by the judge. 

[Worriedman]

4 hours ago, Darrell said:

What Bruen actually says is that  the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation. There has already been considerable confusion among the lower courts as to what, exactly, that means, and I'm confided that SCOTUS will have to revisit that decision. Lower courts are looking at exactly the same questions and coming to differing conclusions.

I agree with you that government does not grant rights, and have made that argument many times over. But the Bill of Rights only lists SOME of our rights, The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that any rights not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states or the people. 

Further, the Constitution has always allowed for penalties to deprive citizens of some or all of their rights. As you pointed out, capital crimes were punishable by death, which is the ultimate deprivation of rights.  And the Bruen decision mentions "law-abiding" citizens over thirty times.

At all events, we've not heard the end of this one.  Bruen was written to address New York's carry laws, and the court did a poor job of telling us how it applies to other situations. I'm sure it will be clarified further in the future.

 

 

Did you read the ruling I posted?

At root, the Government’s claim that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from “the people.” We reject that approach because such “extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.” Folajtar, 980 F.3d at 912 (Bibas, J., dissenting). And that deference would contravene Heller’s reasoning that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 554 U.S. at 636; see also Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2131 (warning against “judicial deference to legislative interest balancing”).

Yet the Government’s attempts to analogize those early laws to Range’s situation fall short. That Founding-era governments punished some nonviolent crimes with death does not suggest that the particular (and distinct) punishment at issue—lifetime disarmament—is rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition. The greater does not necessarily include the lesser: founding-era governments’ execution of some individuals convicted of certain offenses does not mean the State, then or now, could constitutionally strip a felon of his right to possess arms if he was not executed. As one of our dissenting colleagues notes, a felon could “repurchase arms” after successfully completing his sentence and reintegrating into society. Krause Dissent at 28–29. That aptly describes Range’s situation. So the Government’s attempt to disarm Range is not “relevantly similar” to earlier statutes allowing for execution and forfeiture. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2132.
 

From the concurrence by Judge Potter:
As the majority opinion makes plain, these modern laws have no longstanding analogue in our national history and tradition of firearm regulation.2 Maj. Op. 15–22. That’s unsurprising because before the New Deal Revolution, Congress was powerless to regulate gun possession and use. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875) (Congress lacks power to infringe the right declared by the Second Amendment); Presser v. People of State of Ill. 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (same).

The Supreme Court has said that “if a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires.” Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ----, 139 S. Ct. 682, 687 (2019); see also Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2137.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

4 hours ago, Darrell said:

What Bruen actually says is that  the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation. There has already been considerable confusion among the lower courts as to what, exactly, that means, and I'm confided that SCOTUS will have to revisit that decision. Lower courts are looking at exactly the same questions and coming to differing conclusions.

I agree with you that government does not grant rights, and have made that argument many times over. But the Bill of Rights only lists SOME of our rights, The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that any rights not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states or the people. 

Further, the Constitution has always allowed for penalties to deprive citizens of some or all of their rights. As you pointed out, capital crimes were punishable by death, which is the ultimate deprivation of rights.  And the Bruen decision mentions "law-abiding" citizens over thirty times.

At all events, we've not heard the end of this one.  Bruen was written to address New York's carry laws, and the court did a poor job of telling us how it applies to other situations. I'm sure it will be clarified further in the future.

 

In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 14 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022)

From Heller “For example, we found it "fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of' dangerous and unusual weapons'" that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are "'in common use at the time.'"” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 18 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022)

From Heller: “We then concluded: "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all."” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 20 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022)

We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment's historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to "arms" does not apply "only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century." 554 U.S., at 582. "Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 25 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022)

A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second. See, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250-251 (1833) (Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government). Nonetheless, we have made clear that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal Government. See, e.g., Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. __, __ (2020) (slip op., at 7); Timbs v. Indiana,586 U.S. __, __ - __ (2019) (slip op., at 2-3); Malloy v. Hogan,378 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1964). And we have generally assumed that the scope of the protection applicable to the Federal Government and States is pegged to the public understanding of the right when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. See, e.g., Crawford v. Washington,541 U.S. 36, 42-50 (2004) (Sixth Amendment); Virginia v. Moore,553 U.S. 164, 168-169 (2008) (Fourth Amendment); Nevada Comm'n on Ethics v. Carrigan,564 U.S. 117, 122-125 (2011) (First Amendment). New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 34-35 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022)

[deerslayer]

19 minutes ago, Worriedman said:

It is served or judicially abrogated, one of the too.  There are a a lot of 'diversions" granted by judges, but the courts count it settled through probation or whatever is put for by the judge. 

We can window dress and do dick dances with wording all day, but a criminal who serves 3 years of a 10 year sentence because we have more convicted felons than prison beds has not served his sentence.  
 

I would support applying Bruen to it - was letting prisoners out after serving a fraction of their sentence because we need more space a common practice in 1791?  I suspect that it wasn’t. 

Edited June 8, 2023 by deerslayer

[Chucktshoes]

1 minute ago, deerslayer said:

We can window dress and do dick dances with wording all day, but a  criminal who serves 3 years of a 10 year sentence because we have more criminals than prison beds has not served his sentence.  

Then it sounds like you issue lies with the judicial system and it’s failings. So why support an unconstitutional abrogation of rights? Especially in a time when the laws are so voluminous and opaque that nearly anyone can be charged and convicted of a crime to have their rights stripped. Why not work to change what’s broken instead of being mad that something got fixed?

[deerslayer]

2 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Then it sounds like you issue lies with the judicial system and it’s failings. So why support an unconstitutional abrogation of rights? Especially in a time when the laws are so voluminous and opaque that nearly anyone can be charged and convicted of a crime to have their rights stripped. Why not work to change what’s broken instead of being mad that something got fixed?

See my edited addition.  Applying Bruen, it’s not unconstitutional unless that practice was common in 1791.  

[Worriedman]

12 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

We can window dress and do dick dances with wording all day, but a criminal who serves 3 years of a 10 year sentence because we have more convicted felons than prison beds has not served his sentence.  
 

I would support applying Bruen to it - was letting prisoners out after serving a fraction of their sentence because we need more space a common practice in 1791?  I suspect that it wasn’t. 

They put those they sentenced to jail to hard labor.  They killed the ones who committed violent crimes, they did not let them out.  You get that going and we have a lot less problems.

[deerslayer]

1 minute ago, Worriedman said:

They put those they sentenced to jail to hard labor.  They killed the ones who committed violent crimes, they did not let them out.  You get that going and we have a lot less problems.

Truth

[Chucktshoes]

30 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

See my edited addition.  Applying Bruen, it’s not unconstitutional unless that practice was common in 1791.  

The problem is that Bruen does not address the thing you have an issue with. The state by statute chooses how to levy punishment of a crime. When it decides that it is done keeping a person under its oversight and releases them back into the community free and clear, whether after one day or 100 years, their right to self defense and the arms that involves should rightfully return. That’s where Bruen becomes involved. Not while they are under state oversight, but AFTER they are released from it. 
 

35 minutes ago, Worriedman said:

They put those they sentenced to jail to hard labor.  They killed the ones who committed violent crimes, they did not let them out.  You get that going and we have a lot less problems.

While I have long standing opposition to the death penalty, I otherwise agree with this statement. If one is to take issue with the workings of the legal system, this is where the focus should be. Justice reform is needed to make consequences for criminal activity be clear and unavoidable. Restoration of rights, like this decision is a integral part of that as the perpetuating of a second class of citizenry only encourages recidivism. Folks should either be allowed to rejoin society fully, or not at all. Half-assed measures are counter productive for society as a whole. 
 

 

[deerslayer]

46 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

The problem is that Bruen does not address the thing you have an issue with. The state by statute chooses how to levy punishment of a crime. When it decides that it is done keeping a person under its oversight and releases them back into the community free and clear, whether after one day or 100 years, their right to self defense and the arms that involves should rightfully return. That’s where Bruen becomes involved. Not while they are under state oversight, but AFTER they are released from it. 

I respectfully disagree.  You are absolutely correct and I understand that Bruen obviously does not address the corrections policies of individual jurisdictions.  I was arguing that if we applied the Bruen opinion/mindset/philosophy to imprisonment, we would compare punishment then and punishment now and see that felons walking around today after serving only a fraction of their sentences and have no business being free would have been much more severely punished (or even put to death) for the same crimes back in 1791.  I doubt there was a revolving door back then.  We can talk about changing that until we lose our voices, but you and I both know that will never happen.  Therefore, I don’t lose a wink of sleep over some felons (violent or not) permanently losing their rights.  

[Erik88]

It's disappointing that some of you think harsher penalties would actually work. There are countries that chop off a hand for stealing and yet they still have a lot of crime. If people are desperate enough it doesn't matter what the punishment is. 

On the opposite side, there are countries with extremely liberal penalties that have some of the lowest rates of crime on earth. 

Addressing the root cause of crime would be a lot more effective at preventing it than fighting over the penalties. 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Erik88