HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » A gun rights decision pro...

Sat Oct 10, 2020, 03:45 PM

A gun rights decision provides a preview of the justice Amy Coney Barrett might be, both liberals an

Source: Washington Post

A gun rights decision provides a preview of the justice Amy Coney Barrett might be, both liberals and conservatives agree

By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow
10/10/2020, 12:09:44 p.m.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett acknowledges that the decision she considers most significant in her relatively short time as a judge “sounds kind of radical”: She doesn’t believe the Constitution gives government the authority to ban all felons from owning guns.

One gun law expert calls the opinion an “audition tape” for the Supreme Court nomination she received, and Democrats plan to argue at Barrett’s confirmation hearings beginning Monday that it puts her far outside the mainstream. Even, they say, to the right of her conservative former boss, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“She is extreme on this issue,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “She would go much farther than her mentor Scalia did in striking down common sense measures.”

Supporters are enthusiastic about Barrett’s 37-page dissent in Kanter v. Barr, in which she argues only those shown to be dangerous may be stripped of their Second Amendment rights to guns, and that simply being convicted of a felony is not enough.

-snip-


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-barrett-gun-laws/2020/10/10/3845995e-0976-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html

11 replies, 2503 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply A gun rights decision provides a preview of the justice Amy Coney Barrett might be, both liberals an (Original post)
Eugene Oct 2020 OP
qazplm135 Oct 2020 #1
Shermann Oct 2020 #2
Midnight Writer Oct 2020 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #4
sl8 Oct 2020 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #6
sl8 Oct 2020 #7
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #8
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #9
sl8 Oct 2020 #10
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2020 #11

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Oct 10, 2020, 04:01 PM

1. A felony covers a lot of things

Many don't involve anything violent.

I don't necessarily have a problem with saying a non-violent felon, once they have completed their punishment, cannot have all rights restored, including gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 10, 2020, 04:28 PM

2. I agree

Either you are in favor of a felon being able to restore their status in society, or you aren't. If you get slicey/dicey with what rights are restored, then you really aren't.

Oddly this appears to be an issue where the right and left could find a lot of common ground (although for different reasons).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Oct 10, 2020, 04:59 PM

3. Should a child porn fan be able to get a job at a grade school?

Should someone with a history of charity scams (like a Trump) be allowed to run a charity?

Should someone with a history of investment scams be allowed to start a business as a financial adviser?

Should a doctor convicted of malpractice get to resume his practice when he is released from prison?

Should a repeated drunk driver get his driver's license restored?

If not, are their rights being violated?

And what does "shown to be dangerous" mean?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Oct 10, 2020, 06:25 PM

4. IIRC not all felons are barred from gun ownership

I think certain felony SEC violations do not impact your ability to own guns.
For example, I think Martha Stewart can still own guns.

OTOH, I think those folks with felony SEC violations, if they were restricted from buying a gun, would/should they also be restricted from buying say the Remington Company (now in bankruptcy) as a whole?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 11, 2020, 09:30 AM

5. Prohibited persons, per ATF:

Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2020, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

Identify Prohibited Persons

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

[...]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 11, 2020, 12:56 PM

6. well...

https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/dec/28/district-court-holds-some-white-collar-felons-may-lawfully-possess-firearms-due-little-known-exemption-crimes-relating-regulation-business-practices/

District Court Holds that Some White-Collar Felons May Lawfully Possess Firearms Due to a Little Known Exemption For Crimes 'Relating to the Regulation of Business Practices'
In Reyes, District Judge John Bates of the D.D.C. appears to have become the first Federal jurist to hold that some white-collar felons can lawfully possess firearms, notwithstanding the fact that they have been convicted of a crime "punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 11, 2020, 02:11 PM

7. Interesting, thanks

Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2020, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

This case wasn't appealed, but it will be interesting to see if a similiar case makes it's way up the appellate ladder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 11, 2020, 05:29 PM

8. As Orwell said about felons, I mean animals...

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."

I guess if Bernie Madoff ever gets pardoned, he'll be able to rob folks one at a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 11, 2020, 05:59 PM

9. Also, from 18 U.S.C. § 921. Definitions

" (a) As used in this chapter -
........
(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less. What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. ... "


Apparently not only a court decision but also codified law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 06:04 AM

10. Yes, I was not aware of that exemption.

I wonder how Congress came to include that specific exemption. If they had specified non-violent offenders, that would be understandable, but what's so special about "antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 12, 2020, 09:15 AM

11. Most non-violent offenders are still untouchables

Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2020, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

IMNSHO non-violent offenders fall into two groups. There's the usual car thieves, pot smokers, shop-lifters and such and then there's the "civilized" offenders which are covered by subsection (A).

Just so we're clear about how well formulated and clear all of these laws are, I point to subsection (B) where it says in so many words that one sometimes means two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread