Court rules 2A protects people with old, nonviolent felony convictions

[Chucktshoes]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/18/second-amendment-protects-people-with-old-nonviolent-felony-convictions/

In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that (emphasis added, citations omitted, as usual),

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[Footnote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]

The question, then, is whether this “presumpti[on]” of validity can ever be rebutted — for instance, if a person’s felony conviction is many decades in the past, is for a not very serious felony, or both. Today’s Suarez v. Holder (M.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2015) concludes that the presumption was indeed rebutted in this case, where the past felony conviction was in 1990, the claimant’s last misdemeanor conviction was in 1998, and the claimant has otherwise shown that he is now a law-abiding citizen (here by, among other things, having gotten a security clearance for his work with Department of Defense clients). And this is so even though the 1990 felony conviction was for illegal carrying of a gun (and the facts showed that he was drunk at the time), and the 1998 misdemeanor conviction was for drunk driving.

Rest at link.

I believe this is a significantly positive development with regard to 2A rights and the (in)justice system.

[btq96r]

Another win for our cause brought about by the Second Amendment Foundation.  They are getting it done in courtrooms, that's for sure.

[ProfEngr]

The courts are still stupid and unlawful in their holding to the 2nd having limitations. That's complete yak squeeze.

This particular ruling is a step in the right direction I'll give them that.

[macville]

Still confused where in the constitution it says rights are not unlimited... I understand what they mean by that, but that's the excuse that we see used to totally trample on it by vaguely following it. Words mean what they say...unless they are in the constitution.

[mikegideon]

'bout damn time. Now, if it sticks.

[Mike.357]

we are all equal except when others are more equal

[DaveTN]

If you argue that all have the same rights then violent or non-violent isn’t an issue. John Hinckley’s lawyers are arguing he is no longer a danger to himself or others so he can go live with his mother. Maybe he should have gun rights. He has already proven that he is willing to shoot multiple people. But hey, a lot of years have passed and he hasn’t shot anyone else.

There is already a system in place for convicted felons to get their gun rights back. Some states, like Tennessee refuse to give them back to some.

Actions have consequences. If you want to keep your gun rights; don’t commit felonies. If you want your rights back you should have to petition the court where you were convicted and let them decide.

Our state does not recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right for those of us that are not convicted criminals. To argue criminals have that right is preposterous.

[K191145]

A better option would be to completly wipe out any record of a felony conviction of someone who committed a non-violent felony after some years go by and have lived a law abiding life after that. All rights restored. I hate to see a person who maybe had a little too much pot on them 20 years ago, or lied to the IRS 30 years ago ect. be punished for life. Never able to vote, having a permenant record potential employers can see, never possess a firearm ect. After a certain time limit, wipe out all records of a minor "non-violent" conviction, felony and misdomenor. Everybody makes mistakes in their young lives, they shouldn't be punished by society until they die.

[ProfEngr]

Agree, but unfortunately that is contrary to the agendas of those who somehow manage to maintain positions of power.