Ninth Circuit: Felons can have firearms.
- Thread starter MountainGirl
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
So then laws restricting certain types of pornograhy or other expressions of speech are unconstitutional?
A neighborhood in Abilene got up in arms a few years ago because a guy who owned a strip club parked the van he picked up the strippers he flew into town in his neighborhood.
The van had a wrap on it of half naked girls and he parked it in his driveway and there were all types of young kids there and the neighbors rose and and got the city to force him to stop parking it there.
It was "legal" but the neighbors felt it was indecent for the neighborhood.
A person generally cant walk down the street naked in a town because there are laws against that. But what if he is just expressing his free speech?
So you can see where this can go in a hurry.
No, that's John Moses Browning given right.
Generally speaking, the right to protect one's self is different in nature than forfeiting one's right to freedom because of choices made.
Not necessarily. Punishment for a crime is based on a person's chosen actions; this 2A restriction is based on who they are.
Agree, AND I celebrate any decision that puts more teeth in the 2A.
Both or forfeited while imprisoned. Though I believe the rest of your response makes my point here moot.
That’s a pretty good point
.
Could it not be said that the ongoing forfeiture is just an extension of the punishment for the chosen action? And wouldn’t that be ok since it’s based on the choice to commit a crime. “Who they are” is someone who committed a crime with the punishment of prison time and loss of certain rights.
What if it were inacted that an extension of the punishment was that, after incarceration, you were never allowed to speak again, ever. Ridiculous example? Okay.
In my opinion, the restrictions on the government to not infringe was and is critical enough to warrant a separate amendment - otherwise that limitation could have just been tagged onto the first amendment.
And if the Ninth's ruling gives the right to keep and bear back to felons? Bravo. May it set a precedent for much to come.
Well the 2nd says no gun control by government. The SCOTUS screwed up by not standing by what the 2nd Amendment clearly says. It's also bizarre in that the nineth has no problem defending unconstitutional gun control in those communist states.
Exactly. If you're not in prison serving time - you should have the same rights as anyone else. If you're too violent / dangerous to be trusted with your right to keep and bear, maybe you shouldn't be out among the public. Let the drug offenders go, or put them in rehab / community service / probation programs, and reserve jails for more dangerous criminals.
I don't celebrate it, restoring convicted felon's rights should not be a priority when there are much more grievous rights violations against law abiding citizens!
In fact, this is not a "victory" in any sense of the word, I see it as an attempt to put gun owners in a bad light.
Per a US Justice Department nine year study, recidivism rates show an estimated 68% of released prisoners were re-arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.
Over 80% of convicted drug offenders will get arrested again within nine years of their prior offense. The only group that re-offends at a higher rate includes those accused of theft and other property crimes. The recidivism rate for property crimes is closer to 90%.
Recidivism is exceptionally high among criminals with previous gun-related charges, 70% higher than for non-gun first offenders (source: BATF trace records and Census Bureau for 2006, summarized in blog post Rust Pipeline).
Per this older United States Sentencing Committee study, firearms offenders generally recidivated at a higher rate, recidivated more quickly following release into the community, and continued to recidivate later in life than non-firearms offenders.
Firearms offenders recidivated at a higher rate than non-firearms offenders. Over two-thirds (68.1%) of firearms offenders were rearrested for a new crime during the eight-year follow-up period compared to less than half of non-firearms offenders (46.3%).
These facts speak for themselves. Allowing convicted felons to legally possess firearms will only increase the armed crime rates, which puts all gun owners in a bad light!
True "2A victories" would be the repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968!
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
Doesn't really matter as far as the Constitution is concerned. Our options are to either give them back their rights upon completion of their sentence, or keep them locked up. I've always believed that if you're too dangerous to be trusted with your 2nd Amendment rights, you're too dangerous to be walking around freely.
Thank you for your reply and the data which I have no reason to doubt. It would be interesting to know if the recidivated offenders had obtained their gun(s) legally... even before their first offense.
The facts may be valid, yet I'm not convinced that either legal or illegal ownership would play significantly into a person's choice to re-offend.
Guns are tools, not reasons.
Agree 100%.
seeker_two
My posts don't count....
Good thing these criminals that want to commit armed crime are following the restrictions already.....
On this we agree....
Agree on both points. Re the latter, Bruen is turning all this upside down and none too soon, imo; the ninth is even overruling it's own earlier positions. After reading MSM articles saying this only applies to non-violent felons, I read the full Opinion in the Duarte case. It does NOT say that; only that Duarte was one (non-violent felon). There's a pdf link to the decision in the OP link.
Likely it's codified in both federal and state criminal statutes what is currently considered to be a 'violent' crime... but there is a danger here, now in this climate where hurtful hateful words are beginning to be labeled as 'violence'.
Last edited:
This may be of interest.
From the Opinion (emphasis mine)
"At step one of Bruen, we easily conclude that Duarte’s
weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the
Second Amendment’s text and that Duarte’s “proposed
course of conduct—carrying [a] handgun[] publicly for selfdefense”—
falls within the Second Amendment’s plain
language, two points the Government never disputes. Bruen,
597 U.S. at 32. The Government argues only that “the
people” in the Second Amendment excludes felons like
Duarte because they are not members of the “virtuous”
citizenry. We do not share that view. Bruen and Heller
foreclose that argument because both recognized the “strong
presumption” that the text of the Second Amendment
confers an individual right to keep and bear arms that
belongs to “all Americans,” not an “unspecified subset.”
Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70..."
*******
Violent felons, post release, would also be an unspecified subset... and therefore not to be excluded from their rights.
From the Opinion (emphasis mine)
"At step one of Bruen, we easily conclude that Duarte’s
weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the
Second Amendment’s text and that Duarte’s “proposed
course of conduct—carrying [a] handgun[] publicly for selfdefense”—
falls within the Second Amendment’s plain
language, two points the Government never disputes. Bruen,
597 U.S. at 32. The Government argues only that “the
people” in the Second Amendment excludes felons like
Duarte because they are not members of the “virtuous”
citizenry. We do not share that view. Bruen and Heller
foreclose that argument because both recognized the “strong
presumption” that the text of the Second Amendment
confers an individual right to keep and bear arms that
belongs to “all Americans,” not an “unspecified subset.”
Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70..."
*******
Violent felons, post release, would also be an unspecified subset... and therefore not to be excluded from their rights.
Last edited:
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but...
