Ninth Circuit finds that convicted felons also have Second Amendment rights

[The Heretic]

Ninth Circuit finds that convicted felons also have Second Amendment rights

In a significant shift, the appellate court ruled that a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means that convicted felons can't automatically be deprived of their right to bear arms.

www.courthousenews.com

Read More

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Nice to see that a court finally read the memo!

 

[solv3nt]

Nice to see that a court finally read the memo!

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Loc]

They're skewing the meaning and intent of Bruen to get the maximum negative impact and try to embarrass SCOTUS. What are the chances that an LA gang banger doesn't have a violent felony conviction? Not a good tactic IMO.

 

[The Heretic]

Don't hold your breath.

Yes - if I read it right, it was a 3 Judge decision?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

They're skewing the meaning and intent of Bruen to get the maximum negative impact and try to embarrass SCOTUS. What are the chances that an LA gang banger doesn't have a violent felony conviction? Not a good tactic IMO.

There is Historical Precedent for this sort of test case selection, the one that comes to mind is Miranda v. Arizona

 

[PiratePast40]

The argument will most likely go on forever. Personally, I don't believe that serving a prison sentence has anything to do with repaying a debt to society. It's punishment, not absolution of sins. My belief is that you forfeit certain rights when you commit violent and horrific crimes such as murder, especially of a child. Look to God to absolve you of your sins, it's not up to me.

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A Ninth Circuit panel Thursday ruled that a blanket prohibition on convicted felons possessing firearms violates their Second Amendment rights, at least when it comes to nonviolent offenders who served out their sentence.

The majority opinion left open the possibility that felons convicted of violent crimes could still be prohibited from owning firearms after they served their sentence.

In the case of felonies that in the 18th and 19th centuries were traditionally punished with with death, forfeiture of the offender's estate or a life sentence, Bea said, we might "venture to assume it settled that these offenses were of a kind the Founding generation thought serious enough to warrant the permanent loss of the offender's Second Amendment right."

ETA: I'll be gone all day and won't be ale to see others comments, so flame away.

 

[Val1884]

On this week's episode of clown world..once a felon always a felon an no guns for you..but if your a felon you have 2nd amendment rights..

 

[arakboss]

Maybe this will fix the Bipartisan Safe Communities Act problem that's getting people's bg checks denied.

 

[Sharkey]

They're skewing the meaning and intent of Bruen to get the maximum negative impact and try to embarrass SCOTUS. What are the chances that an LA gang banger doesn't have a violent felony conviction? Not a good tactic IMO.

Yeah, I read who the plaintiff was and was like WTF? I don't think a felony conviction should be an automatic loss of 2A rights but I do think a violent felony should be.

 

[Stomper]

Maybe this will fix the Bipartisan Safe Communities Act problem that's getting people's bg checks denied.

I think it'll take a circuit split between one or more circuits before that will get kicked up the flagpole to SCOTUS….

 

[salmon creek gary]

I see a wide and wishy-washy dividing line between a felon 'convicted of a violent crime' and a felon 'convicted of a non-violent crime'. It arises due to the plea bargaining process that results in convictions that may be so mischaracterized they don't even hint at the violence of the actual offense. A felon who commits aggravated battery with homicidal intent (just for example) might well be allowed to plead guilty to felony 'high mopery with intent to sneak'.

At present, the status of "convicted felon" is what (by law if not in reality) prevents Dobad from possessing firearms. To my mind, it is complete folly to shift the prohibition away from the status of "convicted felon" to a lesser standard of "conviction for violent crimes". That shift would as - intended - allow truly non-violent offenders to retain their 2A right following conviction. However, considering the very high rate of plea bargained cases compared to actual trial convictions, that shift to a lesser standard would guaran-damn-tee that a greater number of truly violent offenders would walk away with those same rights. Chilling.

I foresee another controversy that is certain to follow that change in standard. Within five years, protesters would begin claiming that the justice system is disproportionately stripping 2A rights from persons of certain demographics by not plea bargaining their charges down to "non-violent", compared to plea bargains offered to persons of other demographics who commited (arguably) similar offenses.

 

[Loc]

Yeah, I read who the plaintiff was and was like WTF? I don't think a felony conviction should be an automatic loss of 2A rights but I do think a violent felony should be.

Exactly. The 9th Circus cherry-picked this case and decided to apply Bruen completely out of context to artificially create a controversy where there is none. Still playing stupid games in the 9th; hoping the get stupid prizes reality plays out in this one.

 

[BrentN]

I see a wide and wishy-washy dividing line between a felon 'convicted of a violent crime' and a felon 'convicted of a non-violent crime'. It arises due to the plea bargaining process that results in convictions that may be so mischaracterized they don't even hint at the violence of the actual offense. A felon who commits aggravated battery with homicidal intent (just for example) might well be allowed to plead guilty to felony 'high mopery with intent to sneak'.

At present, the status of "convicted felon" is what (by law if not in reality) prevents Dobad from possessing firearms. To my mind, it is complete folly to shift the prohibition away from the status of "convicted felon" to a lesser standard of "conviction for violent crimes". That shift would as - intended - allow truly non-violent offenders to retain their 2A right following conviction. However, considering the very high rate of plea bargained cases compared to actual trial convictions, that shift to a lesser standard would guaran-damn-tee that a greater number of truly violent offenders would walk away with those same rights. Chilling.

I foresee another controversy that is certain to follow that change in standard. Within five years, protesters would begin claiming that the justice system is disproportionately stripping 2A rights from persons of certain demographics by not plea bargaining their charges down to "non-violent", compared to plea bargains offered to persons of other demographics who commited (arguably) similar offenses.

Yeah, we all seem to be glossing over the mess our courts have become. What exactly constitutes a violent felon, and, at least as important, in whose eyes?

 

[arakboss]

Ninth Circuit finds that convicted felons also have Second Amendment rights

In a significant shift, the appellate court ruled that a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means that convicted felons can't automatically be deprived of their right to bear arms.

www.courthousenews.com

Good decision in my view

 

[Slobray]

Yes - if I read it right, it was a 3 Judge decision?

Yup, and knowing the 9th Circus, there will be an en banc review and the full court (with the make up being 30 dems to 22 Reps) will overwhelmingly rule that the 2A was only relevant for a two-week period in January of 1791.


Ray

 

[Sharkey]

Yeah, we all seem to be glossing over the mess our courts have become. What exactly constitutes a violent felon, and, at least as important, in whose eyes?

I would say courts are a mess because Democrats have voted that way. You practice medicine and law so that right there should tell you something. In whose eyes? I would say the eyes of the law. What is a violent felon? A criminal who commits an act of violence in the commission of his crime. I think you are reading too much into it.

Should convicted felons lose some Constitutional Rights? Should they be allowed to vote for instance? They get out on parole and basically have no 4th amend. Right.

It's not that the "system" is bad, it's those running the system which can be bad. Think Soros elected judges and DAs. How many judges were appointed by BHO, Clinton, etc. Heck, even Some Bush nominees have turned out to be wankers.

 

[Jay Walk]

Gun crime.

Lefty will continue to drive it up (killing people) for continued support of confiscation.

How is this hard?

Where's the new laws that will decrease crime?

 

[Alexx1401]

Interesting to say the least. I have LONG held that if someone is not safe out of prison they should still be in prison. Do your time? Prove you "learned" something? You should be a citizen. A LOT of gun owners prove time and again they do NOT think 2A is a right, they think its a privilege. One gov can grant or take at their will. Notice they don't think the rest of the bill of rights no longer applies after someone is convicted, only 2A. So those gun owners get what they ask for. Law makers tell them 2A is a privilege and they can decide how privileged everyone is. Be careful what you ask for plays out over and over again.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Interesting to say the least. I have LONG held that if someone is not safe out of prison they should still be in prison. Do your time? Prove you "learned" something? You should be a citizen. A LOT of gun owners prove time and again they do NOT think 2A is a right, they think its a privilege. One gov can grant or take at their will. Notice they don't think the rest of the bill of rights no longer applies after someone is convicted, only 2A. So those gun owners get what they ask for. Law makers tell them 2A is a privilege and they can decide how privileged everyone is. Be careful what you ask for plays out over and over again.