Another win for freedom. But as you say, we'll see if it holds up.

 

Somebody will appeal

 

I think scotus is likely to agree. At least for a lifetime ban with no options other than a pardon. They may allow a ban to extend beyond release from supervision.

The real question is will this fits the DV misdemeanor issues. The law was never supposed to be a lifetime ban, but congress never laid out a method for rights restoration. Some states have no process. In Texas it’s easier to get a felony off your record than a misdemeanor , although that’s charging a bit with new laws.

Congress could have fixed this as a condition for closing the “ boyfriend loophole” but they didn’t. Of course I’m not sure how that will even work since it may never come up at trial.

 

I am 100% in agreement with this ruling. Non-violent citizens should get their time-out and return as citizens. It is consistent with the historical intent that is now SCOTUS precedent. I hope it goes up and is set in stone. Big Prison,Big Pharma, et al is rotten to the core. Natural rights are good and righteous.

 

Agreed

 

I got slapped with a disorderly for punching a guy 16 years ago. Guess popular opinion thinks I shouldn't own firearms cuz I'm "violent"

 

Why so defensive ?
If you were not convicted of a violent felony then it is moot.
If you are unstable and prone to violence then you may end up disqualifying yourself.
Does "slapped" with a crime mean convicted or just charged ?

 

Why do we have to draw this fictitious line? "Shall not be infringed". There is no "but", "except" or "unless" in the 2nd Amendment.

Before anyone says there are exceptions to 1A as well, like "you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater", yes you can. It's protected speech under the 1st Amendment, but you're responsible for the damages caused by your speech. If we can make exceptions to them, why not just say the 13th is only for Blacks, so Whites can be enslaved?

Felons buying guns? I'm good with that. If they truly paid their debt to society, then let them live like we do. If you think they haven't paid their debt, why did you release them?

 

If you’re free enough to be out of jail, you should be free to exercise ALL your Rights. If not, why are you out of prison?

 

How do people like this become judges?

"Where, as here, the legislature has made a reasonable and considered judgment to disarm those who show disrespect for the law, it is not the place of unelected judges to substitute that judgment with their own," wrote Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, one of the dissenters.

Ummmm, yes it is the place of judges to rule if laws are constitutional or not and rule on interpretation.

If she doesn't, why is she there, and what does she do all day?

 

How do people like this become judges?



Ummmm, yes it is the place of judges to rule if laws are constitutional or not and rule on interpretation.

If she doesn't, why is she there, and what does she do all day?

Actually the final decision is the jury’s to also rule on t law.
Thus why they never tell people of jury nullification anymore.

A jury can refuse to convict if they feel a law is unjust/unconstitutional.

 

If you are such a bad person that you aren't allowed to own guns or vote maybe you shouldn't be allowed to pay sales tax, property tax or income tax. At one time paying income taxes was voluntary. It wasn't until WW1 and prohibition that income taxes became mandatory. Yet the government wants to tax all people equally even the ones who are now considered less than a full citizen because of past mistakes.

Any hardened criminal worthy of the name can get a gun. Even if they have to do it the old fashioned way. Steal it.

I've known non violent men who would like to own a hunting rifle to deer hunt or a shotgun to bird hunt but legally couldn't. Maybe that will change for the better.

 

... It wasn't until WW1 and prohibition that income taxes became mandatory. Yet the government wants to tax all people equally even the ones who are now considered less than a full citizen because of past mistakes.

In the 1920s only the uber-wealthy were taxed. Income taxes were not imposed on the common man until the 1940s.

I have lived in a nation where taxes are not 'voluntary'. the Finance Policia can stop in you traffic to search your car, they can walk into your business or home and search, and they take whatever they deem that they should take.

Whereas our system is considered to be 'voluntary'.

If you have W2 income you can file a 1040 EZ form and let the government take 30% of your wages.

Or the same person may arrange their finances such as to have a bunch of write-offs and deductions to shelter all of your income from being taxed.

I have itemized my taxes for decades. the last time that I paid income tax was 1983.

 

Wyoming just passed a law that says that after five years of killing a sentence, these rights are automatically restored to felons. Glad to see this type of movement. And, I am a corrections professional. I deal with these guys all day, every day.

 

One may petition the courts to have their rights restored. It's not an easy process and clemency is rarely granted.

I tend to lean towards a person having their full rights restored after their debt to society is paid in full.

The US creates felons at a prodigious rate, then clips their god given rights and turns them loose with a criminal record. A person without full rights is a second-class citizen for life.

What happens when they realize they've got the numbers and organize? do they become a society within the existing society? or do they revolt against the system?

More to the point are we fashioning our eventual demise by creating what is essentially a caste system.

 

Interesting.

Will the BATF have to revise their 4473 and their rules?

Will this decision apply to the whole US or just the 3rd district court of appeals area?

 

It will have legal precedent, has to be followed, in the 3rd District and can be used in support of similar cases in other districts assuming it is not overturned.

The facts of the case seem to indicate that it is not applicable to felons but that argument could obviously be made. It appears the statute that was violated was a “wobbler” that could be either a felony or a misdemeanor and the defendant landed on the misdemeanor side of the fence.

“(Defendant) Range pleaded guilty in 1995 to committing welfare fraud in Pennsylvania in order to obtain $2,458 of food stamps, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. He was sentenced to three years of probation.”

 

I wonder if this will effect Hunter Biden's gun purchase/ ownership problem with his lying about drug use on his 4473?

 

@Jdog67
Jury rights, responsibility, precedent, and history

Jurors' Handbook: Citizens Guide to Jury Duty and Jury Nullification

Jurors' Handbook: Citizens Guide to Jury Duty and information on Jury Nullification

caught.net

 

@Jdog67
Jury rights, responsibility, precedent, and history

Jurors' Handbook: Citizens Guide to Jury Duty and Jury Nullification

Jurors' Handbook: Citizens Guide to Jury Duty and information on Jury Nullification

caught.net

In arguing the law to the jury, counsel is confined to principles that will later be incorporated and charged to the jury. United States v. Sawyer, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 297, 443 F.2d 712, 714 & n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1971). The jury in this case was properly instructed on their duty to follow the law as stated in the jury instruction. Appellant's jury nullification argument would have encouraged the jurors to ignore the court's instruction and apply the law at their caprice.

United States v. Trujillo, 714 F.2d 102


United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

September 9, 1983

 

one or more people here are not merely judgmental, but Judge Mental

what is missing here is context: the guy at the heart of this litigation neglected to mention a source of income when he applied for food stamps. that is a misdemeanor, but the state treated it as a felony. it is yet another case of egregious government over reach.

no drugs or violence were involved.

 

Does anyone have a link to this on a nonMSN site?
Not enough tea in China to get me to download, install, OR use an MSN app.

My apologies, should have done the Google-fu first. Here’s what I got

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-cannot-disarm-people-convicted-non-violent-crimes-appeals-court-2023-06-06/#:~:text=United%20States-,US%20cannot%20ban%20people%20convicted%20of%20non%2Dviolent,from%20owning%20guns%2Dappeals%20court&text=June%206%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20The,appeals%20court%20ruled%20on%20Tuesday

.

 

So multiple DUI's would still qualify?
They are "non violent", but indicate a person's propensity to make bad judgements.
Not to mention multiple DUI's are a strong indicator of alcoholism.

For the record, I'm a recovered alcoholic and strong member of Alcoholics Anonymous.

 

As an ex cop who made a lot of felon in possession arrests, I'm in agreement with this court today. From my younger street cop's perspective, the law was a convenient tool for putting someone in jail, that day, that needed to be off the street. But the reality is, those arrested were seldom actually prosecuted, and the in possession charge, was usually bargained away or dropped.

It's reminiscent of Clinton bragging about the thousands of felons that had been stopped from buying a firearm, after the first year of the Brady law. When he was asked how many of those prohibited persons had been prosecuted for the federal felony of attempting to acquire a gun, he said he didn't know. The answer? None. They rushed a couple of token prosecutions out after that, but 99.9999% of those who committed that federal felony, and signed the document proving it, were never prosecuted.

The real answer, as others here have already said, is that someone who is deemed too dangerous to possess a gun, shouldn't be out in public. But as politicians like the Governor in California keep proving, the anti gun folks aren't interested in stopping crime.



.

 

As an ex cop who made a lot of felon in possession arrests, I'm in agreement with this court today. From my younger street cop's perspective, the law was a convenient tool for putting someone in jail, that day, that needed to be off the street. But the reality is, those arrested were seldom actually prosecuted, and the in possession charge, was usually bargained away or dropped.

It's reminiscent of Clinton bragging about the thousands of felons that had been stopped from buying a firearm, after the first year of the Brady law. When he was asked how many of those prohibited persons had been prosecuted for the federal felony of attempting to acquire a gun, he said he didn't know. The answer? None. They rushed a couple of token prosecutions out after that, but 99.9999% of those who committed that federal felony, and signed the document proving it, were never prosecuted.

The real answer, as others here have already said, is that someone who is deemed too dangerous to possess a gun, shouldn't be out in public. But as politicians like the Governor in California keep proving, the anti gun folks aren't interested in stopping crime.

Like the Biden kid

.