9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2nd Amendment Ruling

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

They shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

I am not in favor of illegals voting.

 

[dsf]

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?"