SCOTUS passes on challenges

Register to hide this ad
my dear friend John G. has gone on to be with Jesus.

John liked to drink in his younger days and was the recipient of multiple DWIs. thank God he never hurt anyone with his drunken driving. in Texas more than two and they become a felony the way i understand it.


as he got older he wanted to try to get his voting and firearms ownership rights back. the lawyer was honest enough not to take all his money . he told John he could "probably" get his voting rights restored but there was not enough money made to get his gun rights back.

curiously, that is how it seems to be for persons convicted of a felony even though no one was harmed and offenses were non violent.

just didn't seem right to me. krs/kenny
 
Keep in mind that SCOTUS not taking a case indicates that there aren’t sufficient votes to overturn the decision that’s being appealed.

The Court is very systematic in deciding which cases (and which issues) to address.

Better to leave an issue undecided than to end with a binding decision that’s unfavorable.
 
I am interested to hear what our forum counsel's opinions are. Scalia left some openings in Heller stating the rights are not limitless. Will we land on Potter Stewarts standard?

Caj ????
 
Anyone who has a felony grade DWI has a serious drinking problem. Period. Regarding the other two non violent "white collor" felonies, all I can say is tough snikies. Actions have consequences. I know two white collar felons. Both nice guys and both avid hinters. One had set up a ponzi scheme when he was in his 20's and hurt a lot of people. Long time ago, he has reformed. He hunts with a bow and watches as his kids hunt. He shruggs it off sayin g it is part of the price. The second had a Lacy act violation by preparing a baited field and charging people to hunt. He took the lick and the feds dismissed against all the hunters (who knew damn well what was going on). Hunted black powder for years and was finally able to get a presidential pardon. He can hunt now.
Personally I have no problem with felons not being alowed to own/possess/use guns no matter what the felony is.
Pretty much a no brainer for SCOTUS to refuse this one in my opinion especially in this climate.
Noting hapens in a vacuum.
 
Cajun, What about a person convicted of a nonviolent felony that today
is not classified a felony? I hate to disagree with someone with a law
degree but it seems to me a young person convicted of a nonviolent
felony should not be punished the rest of his/her life. If so what is fair,
right and just about that? Should not fair, right and just be major goals
of our justice system?
As to the case of hunting over bait, the same thing occurred about 30
years ago in Oklahoma. This involved the states largest newspaper
publisher, some of his family members and wealthy friends. Shooting
dove over baited fields which had been going on for some time. The
state game boys were afraid to do anything except look the other way.
Feds stepped in and if I remember correctly all charged and only paid
a, drop in the bucket, fine.
In your case were the so called hunters wealthy or politically connected?
 
Old Arkansawyer said:
Cajun, What about a person convicted of a nonviolent felony that today
is not classified a felony? I hate to disagree with someone with a law
degree but it seems to me a young person convicted of a nonviolent
felony should not be punished the rest of his/her life. If so what is fair,
right and just about that? Should not fair, right and just be major goals
of our justice system?
As to the case of hunting over bait, the same thing occurred about 30
years ago in Oklahoma. This involved the states largest newspaper
publisher, some of his family members and wealthy friends. Shooting
dove over baited fields which had been going on for some time. The
state game boys were afraid to do anything except look the other way.
Feds stepped in and if I remember correctly all charged and only paid
a, drop in the bucket, fine.
In your case were the so called hunters wealthy or politically connected?
Click to expand...
I have often wondered about that as well. Get convicted of embezzlement, tax evasion, tax fraud, insurance fraud, or any other non-violent, no weapon involved felony and you lose your 2A rights for life, yet all other rights can be restored. How does that punishment fit the crime?
 
The S. Ct. has over 8,000 petitions each year. They cannot hear every case.

As for these cases - the issue is a bit more thorny, in addition to the political climate. It's long been deemed acceptable to have some curtailment of rights based on a criminal history. Moreover, this is not a "core" 2A case; it's more of a case that would challenge the right of the state to curtail certain rights based on past criminal convictions. So a decision would likely reach well beyond the 2A. The court would not waste its time to carve out a narrow "2A only" case.

What is still up for decision is the challenge to carry a gun outside your home. That is the kind of case that might be taken up by the S. Ct. We'll see if that will be; they declined in 2017.
 
Last edited:
Punishments have been on the books for a long time. You break the law, it is usually deliberate. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Simple enough concept. To be an adult means you are responsible for your own actions. Follow the rules or lose an adult constitutional right.
 
Old Arkansawyer said:
Cajun, What about a person convicted of a nonviolent felony that today
is not classified a felony? I hate to disagree with someone with a law
degree but it seems to me a young person convicted of a nonviolent
felony should not be punished the rest of his/her life. If so what is fair,
right and just about that? Should not fair, right and just be major goals
of our justice system?
As to the case of hunting over bait, the same thing occurred about 30
years ago in Oklahoma. This involved the states largest newspaper
publisher, some of his family members and wealthy friends. Shooting
dove over baited fields which had been going on for some time. The
state game boys were afraid to do anything except look the other way.
Feds stepped in and if I remember correctly all charged and only paid
a, drop in the bucket, fine.
In your case were the so called hunters wealthy or politically connected?
Click to expand...

Yes

stansdds said:
I have often wondered about that as well. Get convicted of embezzlement, tax evasion, tax fraud, insurance fraud, or any other non-violent, no weapon involved felony and you lose your 2A rights for life, yet all other rights can be restored. How does that punishment fit the crime?
Click to expand...

Cannot disagree but fairness is a rare commodity in the criminal justice system. What is the difference between your scenario and the poor ******* that gets life on a triple bill for stealing a lawnmower to support his drug habit vis a vis fairness.
And remember these laws were passed by law and order legislators taking their marching orders from the electorate
 
dougb1946 said:
Punishments have been on the books for a long time. You break the law, it is usually deliberate. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Simple enough concept. To be an adult means you are responsible for your own actions. Follow the rules or lose an adult constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Gun rights are not treated like other rights. There are people who pleaded guilty in the past to misdemeanor domestic violence when only a felony conviction would have led to loss of rights under the 2A. The law was later changed to retroactively apply to these types of crimes. When they did the crime they could not have known the punishment.
 
Last edited:
stansdds said:
I have often wondered about that as well. Get convicted of embezzlement, tax evasion, tax fraud, insurance fraud, or any other non-violent, no weapon involved felony and you lose your 2A rights for life, yet all other rights can be restored. How does that punishment fit the crime?
Click to expand...

As stated, you do the crime you do the time, (and suffer the consequences related to the crime). When a person is convicted of committing a crime, they not only lose their freedom, other civil rights are often taken away. This will vary depending on the state where a felon resides. However, here are just a few common rights that a felon will lose:

– Their Freedom
– Voting rights
– Serving on a jury
– Traveling abroad
– Owning firearms or ammunition

Personally, I would not want a person convicted of a major felony to be able to buy a gun. Since there are four classes of Felonies, maybe when one gets down to the 3rd or 4th Degree conviction, there is some reason to consider they receive some of their rights restored well after they have served their time.
 
In this country you can buy all the law & justice you want if you have the means. Harvard Case Law is a blue print or menu with doors built in for those who can afford them. Once a couple fat cats go through the doors the well heeled scum can follow. This has only gotten worse in last few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dben002
AR-15 ban approved by SCOTUS
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Rocketmedic40
R
GaryS
A Win In PA
Replies
4
Views
626
ladder13
L
Gary Slider
Minnesota and Handgunlaw.us Updates
Replies
0
Views
291
Gary Slider
Gary Slider
D
Vermont to Challenge Waiting Period and Magazine Restriction
Replies
1
Views
947
dockmurgw
D
J
New Hampshire: Gun Owner Privacy Bill Passes Senate
Replies
1
Views
456
Smithboomer
S

Latest posts

Back
Top