Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumA gun rights decision provides a preview of the justice Amy Coney Barrett might be, both liberals an
Source: Washington Post
By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow
10/10/2020, 12:09:44 p.m.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett acknowledges that the decision she considers most significant in her relatively short time as a judge sounds kind of radical: She doesnt believe the Constitution gives government the authority to ban all felons from owning guns.
One gun law expert calls the opinion an audition tape for the Supreme Court nomination she received, and Democrats plan to argue at Barretts confirmation hearings beginning Monday that it puts her far outside the mainstream. Even, they say, to the right of her conservative former boss, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
She is extreme on this issue, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She would go much farther than her mentor Scalia did in striking down common sense measures.
Supporters are enthusiastic about Barretts 37-page dissent in Kanter v. Barr, in which she argues only those shown to be dangerous may be stripped of their Second Amendment rights to guns, and that simply being convicted of a felony is not enough.
-snip-
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-barrett-gun-laws/2020/10/10/3845995e-0976-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html
qazplm135
(7,502 posts)Many don't involve anything violent.
I don't necessarily have a problem with saying a non-violent felon, once they have completed their punishment, cannot have all rights restored, including gun ownership.
Either you are in favor of a felon being able to restore their status in society, or you aren't. If you get slicey/dicey with what rights are restored, then you really aren't.
Oddly this appears to be an issue where the right and left could find a lot of common ground (although for different reasons).
Midnight Writer
(22,993 posts)Should someone with a history of charity scams (like a Trump) be allowed to run a charity?
Should someone with a history of investment scams be allowed to start a business as a financial adviser?
Should a doctor convicted of malpractice get to resume his practice when he is released from prison?
Should a repeated drunk driver get his driver's license restored?
If not, are their rights being violated?
And what does "shown to be dangerous" mean?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,580 posts)I think certain felony SEC violations do not impact your ability to own guns.
For example, I think Martha Stewart can still own guns.
OTOH, I think those folks with felony SEC violations, if they were restricted from buying a gun, would/should they also be restricted from buying say the Remington Company (now in bankruptcy) as a whole?
sl8
(16,245 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2020, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-personsIdentify Prohibited Persons
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
[...]
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,580 posts)District Court Holds that Some White-Collar Felons May Lawfully Possess Firearms Due to a Little Known Exemption For Crimes 'Relating to the Regulation of Business Practices'
In Reyes, District Judge John Bates of the D.D.C. appears to have become the first Federal jurist to hold that some white-collar felons can lawfully possess firearms, notwithstanding the fact that they have been convicted of a crime "punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."
sl8
(16,245 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2020, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)
This case wasn't appealed, but it will be interesting to see if a similiar case makes it's way up the appellate ladder.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,580 posts)"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."
I guess if Bernie Madoff ever gets pardoned, he'll be able to rob folks one at a time.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,580 posts)........
(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less. What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. ... "
Apparently not only a court decision but also codified law.
sl8
(16,245 posts)I wonder how Congress came to include that specific exemption. If they had specified non-violent offenders, that would be understandable, but what's so special about "antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices"?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,580 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2020, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)
IMNSHO non-violent offenders fall into two groups. There's the usual car thieves, pot smokers, shop-lifters and such and then there's the "civilized" offenders which are covered by subsection (A).
Just so we're clear about how well formulated and clear all of these laws are, I point to subsection (B) where it says in so many words that one sometimes means two.