9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2nd Amendment Ruling

[smoothshooter]

The Court recently ruled that felons not convicted of a violent crime may possess firearms.
I applaud the ruling.
So, what is the ripple effect of this?

Cajun Lawyer?

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

The Court recently ruled that felons not convicted of a violent crime may possess firearms.
I applaud the ruling.
So, what is the ripple effect of this?

Cajun Lawyer?

Good news! I'm shocked the 9th has had some sensible rulings lately.

[Patrick L]

The ripple effect here in NYS will be that our wonderful governess will institute something new "just to show that NY stands up to the gun lobby." Last time we got ammo background checks, even though the ruling had nothing to do with ammo.

[GypsmJim]

Guns and the second amendment protect people that are law abiding citizens. If you are a felon, no matter whether it is violent or not, you lose that right.

The ripple effect is that some states / cities / localities will now make laws in opposition to that moron law, that will in effect harm the rest of us, i.e. the law abiders.

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

Guns and the second amendment protect people that are law abiding citizens. If you are a felon, no matter whether it is violent or not, you lose that right.

The ripple effect is that some states / cities / localities will now make laws in opposition to that moron law, that will in effect harm the rest of us, i.e. the law abiders.

Felons (and illegal immigrants) are going to be allowed to vote before long, so why shouldn’t the non-violent ones be allowed to have guns?

[ISCS Yoda]

There is an interesting debate with respect to non-violent felons. What crime did they commit? Sentencing a street corner marijuana dealer to prison is different than sentencing a world-class heroin importer to prison and VERY DIFFERENT when it comes to paper crimes such as lying on Federal forms, cheating the IRS, etc.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the paper criminals (not the huge FSX types!) and maybe even street peddlers of marijuana but not to peddlers of heroin and fentanyl and cocaine, etc.

The ripple effect will be that the states and Congress will be altering their laws and rules accordingly. The effect on most of us should be minimal BICBW.

[walnutred]

Several years ago I was taking an OSHA training class at the University of Cincinnati. It was was a very cold January and I had a down parka. At lunch time I put on my parka, stuck my hand in my pocket and realized I had not left my P3AT in my hotel room. By Ohio law at the time I had committed a felony. Should that disqualify me from ever owning a firearm again?

[SMSgt]

Originally Posted by walnutred

Several years ago I was taking an OSHA training class at the University of Cincinnati. It was was a very cold January and I had a down parka. At lunch time I put on my parka, stuck my hand in my pocket and realized I had not left my P3AT in my hotel room. By Ohio law at the time I had committed a felony. Should that disqualify me from ever owning a firearm again?

You weren't "convicted" of a felony.

[Eric300]

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

[Buford57]

Felony used to mean a capital crime. Possible death penalty. Later defined as a crime punishable by one year or more imprisonment. When I was on the job any bad check or combination of bad checks totalling $2500 was a felony. Stupid? Yeah. Irresponsible? Sure. Fine, restitution, maybe a little jail? Reasonable. Lifetime loss of a constitutional right? Didn't think it warranted it then, still don't.

[S-W4EVER]

Originally Posted by Buford57

Felony used to mean a capital crime. Possible death penalty. Later defined as a crime punishable by one year or more imprisonment. When I was on the job any bad check or combination of bad checks totalling $2500 was a felony. Stupid? Yeah. Irresponsible? Sure. Fine, restitution, maybe a little jail? Reasonable. Lifetime loss of a constitutional right? Didn't think it warranted it then, still don't.

I agree. This was the reasoning in Tennessee v. Garner (making it illegal to shoot at fleeing felons without extenuating circumstances).

I have never understood why a person convicted of a non-violent felony loses their 2A Rights. I suspect this leads to over-charging so a defendant is pressured to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, whether they’re guilty or not.

As far a felony crimes of violence, disarm them all.

[Rustyt1953]

About 25 years ago a member of my extended family circle spent two years in the big house for embezzlement. After that he worked hard and made a good living. He has raised a family and all are doing well.

He paid his debt to the state. He should be allowed to protect his home and family with a firearm.

[ASA335]

The loss of any right should have a high bar to reach.

If "any felony" is the bar, then legislatures and chief executives only need to pass laws that make any undesirable act or omission (according to them) a felony.

I can see it now, NY makes jaywalking a felony and now half of NY citizenry are barred from ever possessing a firearm.

I'm fine for now with conviction of unlawful violence or unlawful threat of violence being the bar to loss of firearms rights.

[WCCPHD]

I think that that gun rights should be tied directly to voting rights.

IF you can vote, you can possess a gun. A right should be a right.

Personally I tire of the Second Amendment being a Second Class Right.

[stansdds]

Show me where our constitution states that rights are to be lost if convicted of a crime.

I used to be one who thought that loss of rights was just a part of punishment for criminal activity, but constitutionally, but loss of rights is not constitutional. What has changed is our system of justice. When the constitution was penned, a violent criminal, once convicted, would find themselves dangling at the end of a rope. As a society, we largely decided to stop executions, but that did not change the constitution.

I know I am about to take a lot of heat for this post, but the constitution states what it states. I'm putting on my Nomex fire suit now.

[walnutred]

Originally Posted by SMSgt

You weren't "convicted" of a felony.

Yes, committing, charged and convicted are all different things. However had one of the doorways had a metal detector the outcome could have been very different. I committed what according to the law at the time was a felony. Given some of our poorly written laws it's easy to do.

When Ohio's CCW law was first passed pocket carrying in a motor vehicle was illegal. I'm sure I did that at least once also. Working around the barn pocket carrying, need something from the farm supply store, jump in the truck and head to town. Unless you transferred the handgun to a case you were committing a crime. I started keeping a 1 gallon zip lock bag in the console because it met the definition of a "case".

Just look at the latest Ex Order discussed in another thread and you will see how easy it has become to commit a felony.

[GypsmJim]

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

Felons (and illegal immigrants) are going to be allowed to vote before long, so why shouldn’t the non-violent ones be allowed to have guns?

They shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

[deadin]

The "poster child" in this case was listed as having 5 "non-violent" felonies on his record. To me that shows quite a disregard for the law in the first place. Does the court think being armed will solve all of these problems?
The specs will go up (If for no other reason than the sample being bigger) and give the liberals more reason to rewrite the law with even more stringent rules...

What was the old saying? "Give them enough rope and let them hang themselves"

[SMSgt]

Whatever happened to Do your time, complete your parole, make any required restitution, go straight, and apply for rights restoration?

[johngalt]

There should be only 2 classes: Those who are in jail, those who aren't. Those who aren't have ALL their rights.

Creating a multi-tier society of different classes damages us all. Put an end to all this 'universal background check' nonsense.

[cololab]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the earlier history of our country weren't "outlaws" handed back their six shooters when they were freed from prison at the completion of their sentences? I tend to agree with the sentiment that if voting rights are restored, so should all rights.

[NYlakesider]

Originally Posted by cololab

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the earlier history of our country weren't "outlaws" handed back their six shooters when they were freed from prison at the completion of their sentences? I tend to agree with the sentiment that if voting rights are restored, so should all rights.

Over the course of time I have seen that in a few Western movies.

I have also watched movies with WW1 soldiers carring M1s. Trust Hollywood no bleeping way!

[GypsmJim]

I'm shocked after reading this thread.

Giving felons and illegals guns isn't the real issue here. The real issue is that some of our own gun toting brethren actually agree with giving bad people guns.

[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.

[dsf]

Originally Posted by stansdds

Show me where our constitution states that rights are to be lost if convicted of a crime.

I used to be one who thought that loss of rights was just a part of punishment for criminal activity, but constitutionally, but loss of rights is not constitutional. What has changed is our system of justice. When the constitution was penned, a violent criminal, once convicted, would find themselves dangling at the end of a rope. As a society, we largely decided to stop executions, but that did not change the constitution.

I know I am about to take a lot of heat for this post, but the constitution states what it states. I'm putting on my Nomex fire suit now.

The 5th Amendment allows the state to take all your stuff and kill you so long as due process is applied.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I suppose it's debatable as to whether the taking of rights is allowed. But, it seems to me if the state can do all of the above that taking away the right to possess a gun isn't much of a stretch.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

I'm shocked after reading this thread.

Giving felons and illegals guns isn't the real issue here. The real issue is that some of our own gun toting brethren actually agree with giving bad people guns.

The real issue is I'm not willing to cut my own throat because of someone else. Bad people exist. It's a risk I'm willing to accept.

Is our correction system a complete and abject failure, without the possibility of ever rehabilitating anyone? Or should all felonies, no matter how trivial, be an automatic death sentence or life in prison without possibility of parole?

[dsf]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

I'm shocked after reading this thread.

Giving felons and illegals guns isn't the real issue here. The real issue is that some of our own gun toting brethren actually agree with giving bad people guns.

The "issue is the issue" and not a judgement on the conclusions or character of others. Our anti-gun friends tend to do that, as in "you're a bad person because you a) carry a gun b) like "assault weapons or c) need more than 10 rounds". We shouldn't use that approach.

My preference is that anyone in the country illegally be subject to swift deportation, FWIW. Courts have held they are of "the people" and have rights under several amendments including the 2nd. One circuit court (don't recall which) allowed that they were, however as a "prohibited person" by virtue of having broken the law lost the right.

Some states, such as California, have a habit of prohibiting gun possession for a a variety of reasons to include non-violent misdemeanors. Were that to be prohibited by a court decision my bet is CA would reclassify speeding or littering or smoking where prohibited as a felony in order to abridge the right.

Both of which lead to the same question - how comfortable are we allowing a government hostile to rights to determine who is allowed to exercise those rights? And it's not just to "go shooting" or "own a gun" but rather prohibiting a person use of a gun for self-defense, to save their life or the life of their family. As we tell the President - the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

If "Soccer Mom Susie" lifted a TV or had a joint in her pocket 30 years back the state gets to tell her "your life doesn't matter" not her kids when the ex comes calling a 3:00 am?

I don't think the issue is simple or clear cut.

[GypsmJim]

Originally Posted by johngalt

The real issue is I'm not willing to cut my own throat because of someone else. Bad people exist. It's a risk I'm willing to accept.

Is our correction system a complete and abject failure, without the possibility of ever rehabilitating anyone? Or should all felonies, no matter how trivial, be an automatic death sentence or life in prison without possibility of parole?

Yes bad people DO exist. But allowing them to have guns is NOT a risk I'm willing to accept. I AM a good person and I intend to stay that way. So, allowing felons to carry has no effect on MY throat.

Our correction system IS an abject failure. It not only does NOT rehabilitate anyone, but it turns the few that maybe should not be there into life long criminals.

Locally there have been cases where violent repeat offenders, or for example violent criminals that have been let out with no bail, only to get a gun in the black market and go back and kill their spouse and children who had an order of protection on them in the first place.

OTOH, there have been people that embezzled money from their employers and have been incarcerated.

Maybe the embezzlers should have ankle bracelets and be forced into cleaning the streets or other community service. While those suspected of harm to others should be locked up. Why not put the "Bad" ones in jail, and make the others make restitution.

Regardless, if you embezzled, you lost your rights anyway.

JMHO.

[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.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

Yes bad people DO exist. But allowing them to have guns is NOT a risk I'm willing to accept. I AM a good person and I intend to stay that way. So, allowing felons to carry has no effect on MY throat.

Yes it does. Background checks, waiting periods, Form 4473, NFA 1934, GCA 1968, gun bans, magazine bans, veterans, the list goes on. All based on denying the right to own firearms to unpopular classes.

Living in a free society entails risk. I'm ok with that. It's far better than the alternative.

[Magnum_PI]

Not all felony charges are violent, or frankly even serious. Depends on what the state has declared a "felony".

The ramifications I feel are minor and overblown.

Our original law of the land, also known as the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't say you lost your rights if convicted for a crime and after you pay your debt to the state.

That was decided by politicians many years later, who ultimately would probably label all of us felons if they could force confiscation of guns through.

I remember reading some law professor or the like said many years ago, there is so many laws on the books, that the average person may go around committing 3 felonies a day and not even know it.

There is a thin line between law abiding and becoming a law breaker. Sometimes it just depends on who wrote said laws.

I won't be lighting my hair on fire over the ruling.

[Buford57]

I see a lot of talk about "bad people" having guns. One group defines bad people as all convicted felons, another as violent felons, another includes some violent misdemeanors (e.g. domestic violence). All of it boils down to what the Left proposes: that only certain groups should be "allowed" to own guns. The only difference is the criteria used to define who is prohibited and the extent of the prohibition.

Our society starts with revoking 2nd Amendment and 13th, 14th & 15th Amendment rights for "bad people". How about 4th, 5th and 6th next? You were convicted of embezzlement 10 years ago. Now you're charged with murder: you're a felon, so no lawyer, no jury and we beat you with a rubber hose until you confess. Nah, that could never happen.

[GypsmJim]

Originally Posted by johngalt

Yes it does. Background checks, waiting periods, Form 4473, NFA 1934, GCA 1968, gun bans, magazine bans, veterans, the list goes on. All based on denying the right to own firearms to unpopular classes.

Living in a free society entails risk. I'm ok with that. It's far better than the alternative.

It's not a free society if I have to worry about what miscreant may be carrying a firearm.

The list cited above are not concerned with freaking "unpopular classes", but rather classes that have already demonstrated that they don't deserve to to be classified as a law abiding citizen.

[Spurdann]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

It's not a free society if I have to worry about what miscreant may be carrying a firearm.

I assume that “miscreants” are armed, why would they bother to comply with laws and regulations?
Free society is not about restricting the rights of others so you can feel safe.

Hence I carry even though I do not consider myself a miscreant.

[ladder13]

If a “felon”, such as a CC thief, is such a danger then why let them out of jail?

[SMSgt]

Originally Posted by ladder13

If a “felon”, such as a CC thief, is such a danger then why let them out of jail?

Why? Every felony conviction should be a life sentence? We "think" he's violent and may commit another crime, so life without parole? Adopt an "Off with his head!" punishment upon conviction?

Freed felons and guns . . .

If how the law treats them is wrong, push to get it changed. Pull out that soapbox and make your case with those who can create the bills to correct this wrong, if you feel it is.

[deadin]

Adopt an "Off with his head!" punishment upon conviction?

That would surely reduce recidivism statistics....

[GypsmJim]

Originally Posted by Spurdann

I assume that “miscreants” are armed, why would they bother to comply with laws and regulations?
Free society is not about restricting the rights of others so you can feel safe.

Hence I carry even though I do not consider myself a miscreant.

An honest law abiding citizen properly vetted to carry a firearm and legally doing so is not a miscreant.

A free society should not restrict the rights of it's honest citizens. After being convicted of multiple DWIs a person loses his driver's licence. A person convicted of murder loses his freedom.

Defunding the police and offering cashless bail and all the other liberal beliefs are what will result in our downfall. If anyone doesn't believe that statement, just look around. It's happening already.

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

They shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

I am not in favor of illegals voting.

[dsf]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

An honest law abiding citizen properly vetted to carry a firearm and legally doing so is not a miscreant.

A free society should not restrict the rights of it's honest citizens. After being convicted of multiple DWIs a person loses his driver's licence. A person convicted of murder loses his freedom.

Defunding the police and offering cashless bail and all the other liberal beliefs are what will result in our downfall. If anyone doesn't believe that statement, just look around. It's happening already.

And who decides "properly vetted"?

Do we apply that requirement of government approval to the 1st Amendment, the 4th and the 5th as well?

I'll leave alone the "driving is not an enumerated right" correction but a "driver license" (it belongs to the state, not the individual) is not required for purchasing or possessing an automobile. It's required only for operating a vehicle on the public roadway. Buy a car, drive all you want on your own property or have it sit on your front lawn, no problem. BTW, should we require liability insurance for gun ownership as well?

I know it makes people uncomfortable, but when one considers an original intent of the 2nd Amendment it strains credulity to suppose the entity it is supposed to guard against would have veto power over who may exercise the right.

I am uncomfortable with a convicted having a gun and the degree of discomfort grows with the offense. But I'm more uncomfortable with a government that decides who has and does not have rights - as in "who protects us from the protectors?"

[GypsmJim]

Now I figured it out. The ones here that agree with providing felons with firearms are all ******* lawyers.

We need to ensure that guns don't get in the hands of people that could potentially harm others. Some recent mass shootings were done by people that passed the tests, and the guns were legally purchased. I guess we have to live with that. With a clean background check who is to know.

OTOH, if your crime was bad enough to be called a felony, then it is my own personal opinion that you are not a safe bet.

Case closed. It's just my opinion. If anyone disagrees with that, you don't have to argue with me. In this specific case I am the one setting the rules. Simply call up your Congressman and see if he can help you out. Let the politician be the one that makes the law based on who he agrees with.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by dsf

And who decides "properly vetted"?

Do we apply that requirement of government approval to the 1st Amendment, the 4th and the 5th as well?

I'll leave alone the "driving is not an enumerated right" correction but a "driver license" (it belongs to the state, not the individual) is not required for purchasing or possessing an automobile. It's required only for operating a vehicle on the public roadway. Buy a car, drive all you want on your own property or have it sit on your front lawn, no problem. BTW, should we require liability insurance for gun ownership as well?

I know it makes people uncomfortable, but when one considers an original intent of the 2nd Amendment it strains credulity to suppose the entity it is supposed to guard against would have veto power over who may exercise the right.

I am uncomfortable with a convicted having a gun and the degree of discomfort grows with the offense. But I'm more uncomfortable with a government that decides who has and does not have rights - as in "who protects us from the protectors?"

Exactly.

All those restrictions we live under now - background checks, GCA 1968, Lautenberg, etc - exist solely BECAUSE we have created a multi-class population, where some classes are prohibited. Our right to own a firearm has been turned into a privilege where where the onus is on us to prove that we are not a member of a prohibited class.

Do away with the prohibited classes and poof, our rights are restored to ALL of us.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

Now I figured it out. The ones here that agree with providing felons with firearms are all ******* lawyers.

We need to ensure that guns don't get in the hands of people that could potentially harm others. Some recent mass shootings were done by people that passed the tests, and the guns were legally purchased. I guess we have to live with that. With a clean background check who is to know.

OTOH, if your crime was bad enough to be called a felony, then it is my own personal opinion that you are not a safe bet.

Case closed. It's just my opinion. If anyone disagrees with that, you don't have to argue with me. In this specific case I am the one setting the rules. Simply call up your Congressman and see if he can help you out. Let the politician be the one that makes the law based on who he agrees with.

Wrong. I'm an engineer. One that can think logically, is aware that especially with the multitude of malim prohibitum laws out there, calling a crime a 'felony' doesn't make it serious, or even a just law.

And also someone who isn't so scared of the 'felon' label that I am willing to flush my rights away over someone who isn't going to obey the law anyway.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by johngalt

Wrong. I'm an engineer. One that can think logically, is aware that especially with the multitude of malim prohibitum laws out there, calling a crime a 'felony' doesn't make it serious, or even a just law.

And also someone who isn't so scared of the 'felon' label that I am willing to flush my rights away over someone who isn't going to obey the law anyway.

What is a felony in one state is a misdemeanor in another.

Take bad (worthless) checks. Write one for over $1K in Virginia, you are a felon. In NC its $2K.

So, if a person writes a bad check should they be prohibited from buying/owning a gun for LIFE?

Also, a person can have their right to vote automatically restored when their sentence is completed; however, it is almost impossible (at least in NC) to have firearms rights restored (short of a Governor's pardon).

IF Congress would treat ALL rights equally, then perhaps there would be some equity. As long as states/US treat the Second Amendment as a second class right then those with guns will be second class citizens.

[Heinz]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

Now I figured it out. The ones here that agree with providing felons with firearms are all ******* lawyers.

We need to ensure that guns don't get in the hands of people that could potentially harm others. Some recent mass shootings were done by people that passed the tests, and the guns were legally purchased. I guess we have to live with that. With a clean background check who is to know.

OTOH, if your crime was bad enough to be called a felony, then it is my own personal opinion that you are not a safe bet.

Case closed. It's just my opinion. If anyone disagrees with that, you don't have to argue with me. In this specific case I am the one setting the rules. Simply call up your Congressman and see if he can help you out. Let the politician be the one that makes the law based on who he agrees with.

I love the way people who do not think things through, jump to"brilliant conclusions". I am a lawyer, spent nine years working in the criminal justice system. I agree totally with the Second Amendment restriction of the right to bear arms to "law-abiding citizens". I think it will be up to the SCOTUS to define what a law-abiding citizen is. In my years in the Public Defenders office I met a lot of evil people who could never be considered law abiding and who wanted weapons to help them commit crimes. I also think persons with records of repeatedly abusing their spouse, or multiple violent crimes against persons are not law abiding citizens.

[bushmaster1313]

Until it is reversed by the en banc Ninth Circuit (a real possibility) or the Supreme Court (unlikely) non-violent felons in the states of the Ninth Circuit can possess firearms (a significant win) and persons all over the United States can cite to this as persuasive authority.

Also, as a former environmental attorney I know that a corporate executive can be charged with a felony merely by checking a box on a hazardous waste manifest if a government official disagrees with the advice given to the executive by professional environmental consultants acting in good faith and trying to do the right thing.

[S-W4EVER]

Originally Posted by GypsmJim

Now I figured it out. The ones here that agree with providing felons with firearms are all ******* lawyers…

That’s not true, there are a lot of LEO’s who realize there is a lot of gray area out there. There are people out there that deserve a second chance.

[charlie sherrill]

Originally Posted by johngalt

Good news! I'm shocked the 9th has had some sensible rulings lately.

President Trump thankfully reloaded the 9th.

[charlie sherrill]

I've got a neighbor who was convicted of felony possession of marijuana charge while he was in college over 40 years ago. He had two marijuana cigarettes on him when he was arrested. He was fined and probated but he is still considered a felon. The guy is in his early 60's now and can't pass a background check even though the felony he was convicted of is no longer a felony. Most cops now don't even arrest for that small amount of MJ. It's a time waster and will most likely require the officer to be in court on his days off or when he is working nights. He can probably get that old charge non adjudicated but that takes a lawyer and a lot of money to do so.

[Mercury]

Originally Posted by Magnum_PI

Not all felony charges are violent, or frankly even serious. Depends on what the state has declared a "felony".

The ramifications I feel are minor and overblown.

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.