Provision of '68 GCA struck

[ladder13]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/blog/...onstitutional/


A US citizen was convicted and served time for illegal handgun possession. He paid the price, but after his incarceration led a problem free life.

He should be able to now own guns. I agree.


" the Court held that “Plaintiff’s background and circumstances in the years following his conviction establish that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society….Therefore, we find that Plaintiff falls outside the intended scope of § 922(g)(1) and is distinguishable from those historically barred from Second Amendment protections.”

[LoboGunLeather]

This story contains a bit of irony. The man involved actually has a felony conviction (involving possession of a loaded firearm while intoxicated) followed several years later by a misdemeanor conviction (DUI). Certainly, these events were followed by some 17 years without further criminal convictions, and the gentleman has held responsible employment which included government security clearances during that time, indicating that he has indeed turned his life around.

Personally, I have no problem with the ruling of the court essentially restoring constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment.

The irony is that a convicted felon with a history of criminal acts involving firearms and alcohol abuse now has a written court order that acknowledges his right to keep and bear arms, while millions of us will never receive such governmental acknowledgement of our constitutional rights.

[Aticus]

What I read in that article says the Federal Statutes do not apply to that individual. The ruling says nothing about the constitutionality of the Statutes. This redress has always been available to anyone who has a felony conviction.

I'm not a lawyer so maybe one will jump in here and give us an opinion from a trained legal mind????