Top Gun Rights Group Backs White Supremacist's Supreme Court Case

[KamaAina]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/gun-owners-of-america-samuel-johnson-neo-nazi

Samuel Johnson isn't exactly a lawyer's dream client. He's a white supremacist with a lengthy rap sheet who a couple years ago was accused of plotting an attack on a Mexican consulate. He ended up drawing a 15-year prison term on a gun charge, and his case is now on his way to the US Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear a challenge to his sentence. Johnson has won the vocal backing of a top gun rights group, but as his case moves forward, it may eventually draw support from some liberals and civil libertarians who oppose harsh mandatory minimum sentences....

Larry Pratt, GOA's executive director, concedes that Johnson isn't a very sympathetic character. But he says that's precisely why GOA got involved—to prevent Johnson's unsavory background from detracting from the serious constitutional issues at stake in his case. "Nobody's interested in defending the guy per se," Pratt says. "In fact, if anything I resent him more because who he is could mess [the law] up for a lot of really innocent people. Bad cases make bad law."

Oral arguments haven't been scheduled yet, but a ruling in Johnson's favor could have a big impact on federal gun prosecutions by limiting prosecutors' ability to secure long prison sentences for relatively minor gun offenses. But a Johnson victory might also give civil libertarians reason to cheer a check on prosecutorial power....

Pratt himself has been tied to white-supremacist groups, starting with his presence at the launch of the militia movement in the 1990s, at a meeting convened by a white-supremacist pastor. That said, in Johnson's case, the radical gun group is on solid and potentially bipartisan ground. In fact, GOA makes arguments in its Supreme Court brief that echo liberal positions opposing the harshness of mandatory minimum sentencing and the excessive power it grants prosecutors.

[blueridge3210]

1. So mandatory minimum sentencing is bad

unless targeted at someone you don't like?

Something to ponder:

The Mapps of Mapp v. Ohio weren't nice people; they still had constitutional rights to privacy under the 4th Amendment.

Escobido and Miranda were career criminals; they still had 5th Amendment rights.

Gideon of Gideon v Wainwright was a career criminal who, quite likely, committed the burglary he was charged with.

If the rights of the "least desirable" among us are not secure then they are secure for no one.

[KamaAina]

2. That is among the points made in the article

that civil liberties advocates may well find common ground with the loathsome neo-Nazi.

[NutmegYankee]

3. Civil rights cases often protect the loathed among us.

The famous ACLU case defending the right to speech for the Neo-Nazis is a famous example. In much criminal case law, the party the court finds for on protection of rights is often slimy or disgusting, but rights and protections apply to all.

[hifiguy]

4. Wouldn't be the first time.

Frank Collin (I think I remembered that name correctly) and his pinhead American Nazis got a lot of support from the ACLU when they wanted to march through Skokie, IL back in the 1970s. They picked Skokie because it was home to a lot of Holocaust survivors. To ice cake, Jewish attorneys were involved for the ACLU.

Defending, really defending, principles sometimes makes for unsavoury bedfellows. It's easy to defend the things you are comfortable with, but assholes have constitutional rights as well.

[kcr]

5. I definitely don't think that

Mandatory minimums are a bad thing. It's not okay for anyone.

[Lurks Often]

7. I'm not necessarily opposed to mandatory minimums, but

I do oppose classifying someone as a violent felon simply because he was caught in possession of firearms, he never used those firearms in the commission of a crime

[kcr]

8. I don't know anything about his case so I don't have an opinion on whether or not he should have

But generally speaking, no, I don't think someone should be declared violent unless the crime was violent. I do support laws that limit gun ownership for felons though.

[Lurks Often]

9. Agreed, in general a felon is prohibited from owning a firearm

unless he can get a pardon or in a very few states, get his right to own a firearm re-established.

[Lurks Often]

6. He maybe a POS, but he is entitled to the same right of appeal

an average person gets. I happen to think Johnson is a POS and probably deserves 15 years in jail, but not in the way the article states it. A person should not be considered a violent felon simply because he was caught in the possession of a firearm illegally.