9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2nd Amendment Ruling

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Originally Posted by CH4

Unfortunately, the 9th’s ruling only incorporates the states within the circuit. However, a similar case, Rahimi, was granted cert. Good chance all 50 states will be see the 2A rights of nonviolent felons restored.

Rahimi is not squarely the same issue. BUt I do believe that there is a similar case at the district court (federal) level in Florida where the trial Judge ruled that a non violent felony conviction does not disqualify one from owning or possessing firearms that is headed to the 11th circuit.
But all of these cases stem from Bruen decision and its' reasoning.
And for all of you that are screaming that Felony = BAD no gun for you no matter what type of felony it is-guess what??? You got what you asked for in Bruen. And now you're saying it goes too far???? Be careful for what you wish for and DON'T complain when you get it.

[CAJUNLAWYER]

(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1)who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2)who is a fugitive from justice;
(3)who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4)who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5)who, being an alien—
(A)is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B)except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6)who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7)who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8)who is subject to a court order that—
(A)was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B)restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i)includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii)by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9)who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

And here is the Duarte Decision from the 9th.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/05/09/22-50048.pdf

FWIW I think the dissent has a point....

[deadin]

Now we can discuss "What is violent?"

[steelslaver]

One of my biddies was convicted of stealing a car shortly after he turned 18. He is now 75 years old, has worked hard all his life, raised some great kids, and I would trust him with my life. Yet apparently some here believe he is forever completely worthless, untrustworthy and believe because he got caught doing something stupid once in his life he should never have the same rights and freedom as those of us who never got caught doing making a mistake something stupid.

I however am not that much of a holier than though not an attorney

[Rustyt1953]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

One of my biddies was convicted of stealing a car shortly after he turned 18. He is now 75 years old, has worked hard all his life, raised some great kids, and I would trust him with my life. Yet apparently some here believe he is forever completely worthless, untrustworthy and believe because he got caught doing something stupid once in his life he should never have the same rights and freedom as those of us who never got caught doing making a mistake something stupid.

I however am not that much of a holier than though not an attorney

I just did a search for "the voice of reason" and found this. ^^^^

[GypsmJim]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

One of my biddies was convicted of stealing a car shortly after he turned 18. He is now 75 years old, has worked hard all his life, raised some great kids, and I would trust him with my life. Yet apparently some here believe he is forever completely worthless, untrustworthy and believe because he got caught doing something stupid once in his life he should never have the same rights and freedom as those of us who never got caught doing making a mistake something stupid.

I however am not that much of a holier than though not an attorney

As a high schooler, we took guns to school so we could practice after school. But now we live in completely different times. My wife is a teacher and I worry about her every day.

How to vet is the crux of the problem. A 50 year incident from a honest citizen needs to be considered. I just don't know how to make that happen.

A local trial is in the front page of the news every day. It involves prostitution, drug sales and the prime witness was recently murdered. Everyone knows he is the baddest person in town, but his million dollar lawyer will probably get him off. With no conviction he will be eligible to get a pistol permit, which will include semi auto rifles.

I'm worried.

This whole topic does not have an easy solution.

(and my diatribe probably doesn't even apply to the topic?

[steelslaver]

You are correct that there is no easy answer. I know people with felonies convictions who I would trust with guns, I know more without any record whom I would not.

I would bet that many of those on this forum at one time or the other did something that could have been charged as a felony. Heck the threshold is pretty low in some jurisdictions.


But, I am a one who believes that once you paid the price, completed your punishment, how every you want to say it. you deserve a second chance especially those who committed non violent offenses.

I am far more concerned with felons or should be felons whose have a total disregard for gun laws.

[walter o]

But in the far distant past people were instructwd by parents ,teachers and others that GETTING INTO TROUBLE WOULD FOLLOW THE REST OF YOUR LIFE does not apply today .It is OK to do what you want to do without consequences .WE are not held accountable for your actions

[Well Armed]

Originally Posted by walter o

But in the far distant past people were instructwd by parents ,teachers and others that GETTING INTO TROUBLE WOULD FOLLOW THE REST OF YOUR LIFE does not apply today .It is OK to do what you want to do without consequences .WE are not held accountable for your actions

What's that have to do with the price of tea in China? Yes, if you break the law, it may follow you and affect you the rest of your life. That fact does not equate to it being Constitutional or right to take away a right for life for a non-violent crime.

Another post stuggested that those who agree that non felons should have their rights restored must be one of the lowest forms of human beings, aka lawyers. On the contrary, what I am seeing here is the difference between logical thinkers versus those who make decisions based on their emotions and how they feel.

[Well Armed]

In New Jersey, it's an 18 month prison sentence, aka a felony, for possessing a single hollow point bullet outside of the home which is completely legal to have in all 49 other states!

There have been out of state gun owners who traveled to NJ, were pulled over because NJ law enforcement saw their out of state tags, ran their plates, saw they have a carry permit from their home state (many states share that information with other states), and searched their vehicles. Should these people be banned for firearm ownership for the rest of their lives in all 50 states because of this?

In some states, innocently forget you had a firearm or ammo in one of your carry on bags or checked bags, and you can end up being a life long felon. How do you feeling based thinkers feel about that?

Originally Posted by Shaneen Allen

Shaneen Allen, 27, of Philadelphia, bought the gun legally and has a concealed carry permit in her home state, but New Jersey does not recognize the gun license.


Allen went from getting only a traffic ticket to being arrested and charged with illegal gun possession and armor-penetrating bullets, records showed.....


‘She voluntarily and honestly told the officer that she had her licensed handgun and gave him her license to carry,’ Allen's attorney Evan Nappen told WCAU.

‘She’s a hard-working single mom. It’s really crazy that New Jersey is taking someone who’s got no criminal record and was doing nothing wrong — other than a minor traffic violation — and making it into a felony-level conviction with minimal mandatory time....’


Nappen claims his client was unaware that new Jersey did not reciprocally recognize Pennsylvania gun permits even though 30 other states do.....


‘We’re talking about a law-abiding, licensed person who did nothing wrong,’ Nappen told WWOR. 'She is now facing three-years minimum mandatory, where the judge has no discretion, in state’s prison.’....


Allen bought the gun as protection for her family only a week earlier after her home was broken into twice, according to Nappen.....


She is the mother to two young daughters and has no prior criminal record outside a handful of minor traffic violations, records showed.


Inside and Out: Shaneen Allen Case is a Mockery of Justice | An Official Journal Of The NRA

Do you grown men not feel safe if this mother of two who clearly committed multiple felonies was convicted and later had her rights restored?

[fotog54]

Lot of posters here believe rights come from the government. Socialists, Marxists and other leftists believe that! I firmly believe that in my lifetime we will become felons at the stroke of a pen! Our founding fathers stated that we have inalienable rights, perhaps you should spend some time learning what that means!

[MrOverlay]

Originally Posted by fotog54

Lot of posters here believe rights come from the government. Socialists, Marxists and other leftists believe that! I firmly believe that in my lifetime we will become felons at the stroke of a pen! Our founding fathers stated that we have inalienable rights, perhaps you should spend some time learning what that means!

An infamous man allegedly said "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime". I've been in law enforcement, off and on, for approximately 40 years. If it's ok to take one constitutional right, why not more of them?

My opinion, we have gone too far in stripping rights from citizens under a one size fits all process.

[Wyatt Burp]

Certain people think that unless you’re the depraved loser drug addicted son of a very powerful person with certain opinions that jive with their own you should not own a gun if convicted of a felony. in fact they feel you/us shouldn’t own them anyway. I think anyone released from prison should have the right to own a gun. If someone thinks they shouldn’t then they must still be a danger and shouldn’t be paroled in the first place.

[johngalt]

Under what circumstances should a released "felon" also be denied his rights guaranteed (not granted) by 1st and 3rd-8th amendments?

[GypsmJim]

Originally Posted by Wyatt Burp

Certain people think that unless you’re the depraved loser drug addicted son of a very powerful person with certain opinions that jive with their own you should not own a gun if convicted of a felony. in fact they feel you/us shouldn’t own them anyway. I think anyone released from prison should have the right to own a gun. If someone thinks they shouldn’t then they must still be a danger and shouldn’t be paroled in the first place.

So Johnny Jones rapes and murders his girlfriend with a firearm. More than one person was involved. He gets a deal and gets convicted for 20 years to life, and then gets paroled after 15 years for good behavior.

He served his sentence. He was paroled because the law gave him freedom. Some people would say that he is now rehabilitated. Maybe yes, maybe no. I say he should have had life with no parole in the first place. But that's just my opinion.

In any event, you say he should now be able to buy a gun. I say OMG what has our society come to!

OTOH, a kid gets in trouble because he had 2 joints in his pocket. Sure it was illegal at the time, but now it is legal. Regardless, AT THE TIME he knew it was ILLEGAL but decided to become a felon anyway. OK, let the pissant have a gun. I concede.

Obviously, 2 extremes. The problem is all the cases in between. Who makes the judgement on what level is gun worthy?

[Buick]

Originally Posted by dsf

I' in California and while the 9th siding with gun rights on any matter is welcomed I'd kind of like something that touches on my life, so to speak. Such as being able to buy a Ruger Charger (AW prohibited) or an older S&W or Colt (not roster approved) or God forbid, a magazine that holds greater than 10 rounds.

Exactly, the 9nth seems to have zero problem applying Bruen in a case restoring a felons constitutional right, but they can't seem to apply the same methodology and toss an unconstitutional magazine ban.

Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the left

[Wyatt Burp]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

So Johnny Jones rapes and murders his girlfriend with a firearm. More than one person was involved. He gets a deal and gets convicted for 20 years to life, and then gets paroled after 15 years for good behavior.

He served his sentence. He was paroled because the law gave him freedom. Some people would say that he is now rehabilitated. Maybe yes, maybe no. I say he should have had life with no parole in the first place. But that's just my opinion.

In any event, you say he should now be able to buy a gun. I say OMG what has our society come to!

OTOH, a kid gets in trouble because he had 2 joints in his pocket. Sure it was illegal at the time, but now it is legal. Regardless, AT THE TIME he knew it was ILLEGAL but decided to become a felon anyway. OK, let the pissant have a gun. I concede.

Obviously, 2 extremes. The problem is all the cases in between. Who makes the judgement on what level is gun worthy?

I, too, think Johnny Jones should still be in prison, but he isn’t. So yes, he should get to own a gun if he wants. If he ran his girlfriend over with a car would you think he should be denied a drivers license for life but a gun might be OK? Like you said, between your two extremes are very or slightly vague examples. And who should then decide who can own a gun in those cases? Where are the lines drawn, and how can that be decided without letting our own personal feelings and prejudices (I don’t mean racial) cause inconsistent and unfair outcomes? That gives too much wiggle room for denying others the right. Like if a gun owner is filmed arguing with his wife, that can be twisted into domestic violence and no gun for him. I think this has happened.
BTW, your examples which were, as you said, extreme, were good ones for the sake of discussion here.

[walter o]

i Guess that i have heard that "who ever said life is fair"had it right
I wonder how many gun owners on this forum have kept from breaking laws knowing that they could lose the rite to own firearms?

[MrOverlay]

With the number of laws on the books, federal and state, a person is lucky indeed to have not ran afoul of a felony offense at some time., intentional or unintentional.

A quarter inch on your rifle or shotgun barrel will subject you to a decade in a federal prison. ATF are revoking dealer license for what appear to be unintentional mistakes under their zero tolerance policy.

Don't forget many posters in the classified section my be subjected to the new definition of dealer, it just depends on what agent is looking at your case.

[dsf]

Well, one hopes the 9th and others comport with the summary of the Duarte decision on future 2A cases -

"The panel held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society; and that Vongxay, which did not apply the mode of
analysis that Bruen later established and now requires courts
to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen.

Applying Bruen’s two-step, text-and-history framework, the panel concluded (1) Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text, that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a]handgun[] publicly for self-defense”—falls within the
Second Amendment’s plain language, and that Duarte is part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects because he is an American citizen; and (2) the Government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, “is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right."

I don't wear a hat but if I did, the above seems a good place to hang it.

[rosewood]

Originally Posted by Eric300

If you're CONVICTED of a felony, you're a FELON. Doesn't make much difference to me what the crime was.

I believe the person that brought the case, or at least one of the challenges was a felon because he lied on a welfare application like 20 years ago. He is now an upstanding citizen.

There are some felons that didn't even know what they did was a felon and some states have felonies that are not felonies in other states.

For example, many of us have carry permits and are perfectly legal to carry in like 40 states, but you go to New Jersey with your handgun and you are now a felon. Should you be barred from carrying for life? Some folks even forgot they were carrying when they were caught.

The felony and circumstances do matter.

Rosewood

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

The problem is all the cases in between. Who makes the judgement on what level is gun worthy?

This. In a nutshell.
The only person I would trust would be me. That would work. But at some point I will die and then who would take over???

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER

This. In a nutshell.
The only person I would trust would be me. That would work. But at some point I will die and then who would take over???

The writers of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers already figured that out.

[steelslaver]

Yes, but the Constitution did not say anything about needing a government ID, a Social Security Card number, or any kind of back ground check in order to exercise any or the rights listed in the Amendments, in fact they framers felt the people were born with ALL of those in the first 10.

I am quite sure most of them would not have approved of things like FROD cards, 4473s or carry permits. The very idea that you needed to have a permit to carry a firearm in you carriage would have send most of them over the edge and they certainly would have thought a law saying your guns could not be loaded while in your vehicle was a violation of the 2nd.

We have came a long ways from what the framers meant when they wrote the constitution and when the bill of rights were ratified.
It gets me that a lot of those here seem to be fine with it.

IF losing you rights under ANY of those enumerated in the constitution, it should be clearly stated during sentencing. None of it should be a case of in addition.

If your a felon you can still practice the religion of your choosing, your still entitled to reasonable bail, solderers can not be billeted in your home, you have a right to be secure in your home and papers and not testify against yourself, you have a right to a speedy jury trial in both criminal and civil cases, in fact the ONLY right you lose is the right to keep and bear arms,

The right of everyone to vote is NOT mentioned by any amendment. 15 th, The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied State on or abridged by the United States or by any account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. the 19th on account of sex and the 26th on the account of age if over 18. No where do any of these prohibit being denied due to criminal history unless you construted being sentenced for a felony being a condition of servitude and then their right to vote would be protected.
BUT NOWHERE IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE MENTIONED BEING FOR ALL

[CH4]

Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER

Rahimi is not squarely the same issue. BUt I do believe that there is a similar case at the district court (federal) level in Florida where the trial Judge ruled that a non violent felony conviction does not disqualify one from owning or possessing firearms that is headed to the 11th circuit.
But all of these cases stem from Bruen decision and its' reasoning.
And for all of you that are screaming that Felony = BAD no gun for you no matter what type of felony it is-guess what??? You got what you asked for in Bruen. And now you're saying it goes too far???? Be careful for what you wish for and DON'T complain when you get it.

Correct, I mixed Rahimi 922 (g)(8) up with Range 922 (g)(1).

[GaryS]

It makes a lot of difference. I remember a case where someone was convicted of a felony because he shipped flower seeds via mail without a license to sell flower seeds.

That should be a fine, if anything.

The problem is that the government, especially the federal government as represented by Congress, has continued to lower the bar for what constitutes a felony.

Whether it's intended or not, that has had the effect of increasing the number of Prohibited People.

Originally Posted by Eric300

If you're CONVICTED of a felony, you're a FELON. Doesn't make much difference to me what the crime was.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Mercury

In NY if you're in possession of a gun magazine that holds over 10 rounds, you've committed a felony. It's absurd that you lose your rights over it.

In New Jersey if you are nabbed outside your house with a magazine loaded with 10 hollow points you have committed 10 felonies

[GypsmJim]

Originally Posted by walter o

i Guess that i have heard that "who ever said life is fair"had it right
I wonder how many gun owners on this forum have kept from breaking laws knowing that they could lose the rite to own firearms?

Count me in.

But it goes deeper than that. I keep from breaking the laws because of my Christian upbringing. Do unto others and all that ****.

I don't speed because if I get a ticket my insurance rates will go up. I'm just cheap.

My camp is one road away from PA, and I can't carry there. So when I go across the border I keep the guns at the cabin. Who knows, what if I have an accident.

Avoiding being a felon means more than guns. It's all about being a responsible honest citizen.

A good friend got a DWI and a few years later he applied for a pistol permit. Not available to him any more. Harsh? Maybe. What if he had killed a little kid while drunk. Personal responsibility?

If you forgot you had a handgun in your carry-on and go thru TSA at the airport, you should not be charged as a felon, but rather as a moron. When the judge lets you off with no bail, please don't text while you're driving home....

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by fotog54

Lot of posters here believe rights come from the government. Socialists, Marxists and other leftists believe that! I firmly believe that in my lifetime we will become felons at the stroke of a pen! Our founding fathers stated that we have inalienable rights, perhaps you should spend some time learning what that means!

Brilliantly stated.