9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2nd Amendment Ruling

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

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]

18:U.S.C. 922 (g)

(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 (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]

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]

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]

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?

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?