Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

[wmenorr67]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GUNS_LEGAL_CHALLENGES?SITE=OKTUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.  "Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

And the hits keep on coming.  The paragraph qouted above is the jest of their reasoning.

If if isn't a violent offense I see no problem with them having firearms once they complete their sentences.  But if it is a violent offense I say no way.

[MicroBalrog]

This is actually a HUGE problem.

While I  have no problem with felons owning guns after they're done with their sentence, I fear that 'bad cases' may affect precedent negatively.

There's a reason people spent so long looking for 'the right case' to tackle in SCOTUS.

[Tallpine]

Once you have been convicted of a felony you should lose your rights forever.

No guns, no voting, no habaeus corpus, no jury trials, no limits on search and seizure, and the cops can beat a confession out of you.

 

[41magsnub]

Once you have been convicted of a felony you should lose your rights forever.

No guns, no voting, no habaeus corpus, no jury trials, no limits on search and seizure, and the cops can beat a confession out of you.

 

I'd agree with that if appended with violent felony.

[xavier fremboe]

Once you have been convicted of a felony you should lose your rights forever.

No guns, no voting, no habaeus corpus, no jury trials, no limits on search and seizure, and the cops can beat a confession out of you.

 

I'm with you on the first two, but umm, if you're going to take away habeus corpus, unreasonable search and seizure, and no limits on police interrogation tactics, what exactly is the incentive to reform?  I'm hoping that you are engaging in hyperbole here.

[Balog]

If you can't trust them with guns you shouldn't be putting them back on the street just yet.

[Tallpine]

I'm hoping that you are engaging in hyperbole here.

I'm hoping you all are sharp enough to recognize that ... 

[xavier fremboe]

I'm hoping that you are engaging in hyperbole here.

I'm hoping you all are sharp enough to recognize that ... 

Sorry.  I've been irony deficient here of late.  Thanks for clarifying.

[Jamisjockey]

If you can't trust them with guns you shouldn't be putting them back on the street just yet.

In fear of incurring the wrath of the Irwin.....

+1!!

Especially since it is acknowledged as fact by the general gun community that a private citizen should be able to transfer weapons without going through the legal hoops placed upon a gunshop.  We have the right to transfer property without proof of that person's status as a felon, illegal alien, or otherwise prohibited person.  Putting dangerous felons back out on the street is bad juju....if they want guns they will get them.

[Matthew Carberry]

If you can't trust them with guns you shouldn't be putting them back on the street just yet.

In fear of incurring the wrath of the Irwin.....

+1!!

Especially since it is acknowledged as fact by the general gun community that a private citizen should be able to transfer weapons without going through the legal hoops placed upon a gunshop.  We have the right to transfer property without proof of that person's status as a felon, illegal alien, or otherwise prohibited person.  Putting dangerous felons back out on the street is bad juju....if they want guns they will get them.

Gonna split a hair here.

We have the right to transfer property unless we have proof of that person's status as a felon, illegal alien, or otherwise prohibited person.

I think most criminals who get guns through private transfers are probably known by the seller to be prohibited, the seller just doesn't care.  Try to regulate private sales and that sort will do it illegally anyway.

I have to doubt the majority of otherwise legal private gun transactions to criminals involve actually "good" folks getting "tricked".

[mfree]

Leave the laws in place that restrict felons.

Then tackle the *real* problem, and raise the bar **way** high on what a felony is defined as.

[xavier fremboe]

Leave the laws in place that restrict felons.

Then tackle the *real* problem, and raise the bar **way** high on what a felony is defined as.

What is the real problem, and how high do you think the bar should be?

[Antibubba]

If they've really reformed, let them get their record expunged.  Otherwise, violent or not, no go.

This isn't the really interesting one.  Wait until the courts get the suits from "convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence" or "Accused of domestic violence, but not convicted, arrested, or charged".  This does happen.

[MicroBalrog]

Leave the laws in place that restrict felons.

Then tackle the *real* problem, and raise the bar **way** high on what a felony is defined as.

What is the real problem, and how high do you think the bar should be?

The real problem:

More and more stuff is a felony that shouldn't be.

Hack a shotgun barrel too short, you're a felon.

[K Frame]

Once you have been convicted of a felony you should lose your rights forever.

No guns, no voting, no habaeus corpus, no jury trials, no limits on search and seizure, and the cops can beat a confession out of you.

 

I think that should apply to people who double park during rush hour.

[Tallpine]

Once you have been convicted of a felony you should lose your rights forever.

No guns, no voting, no habaeus corpus, no jury trials, no limits on search and seizure, and the cops can beat a confession out of you.

 

I think that should apply to people who double park during rush hour.

And pretty soon El Tejon will come around and add that it should be applied to those who park on their grass that needs mowing.

[GigaBuist]

More and more stuff is a felony that shouldn't be.

Yep.  Odds are we've all committed one.

[Manedwolf]

More and more stuff is a felony that shouldn't be.

Yep.  Odds are we've all committed one.

Not necessarily.

[De Selby]

This is actually a HUGE problem.

While I  have no problem with felons owning guns after they're done with their sentence, I fear that 'bad cases' may affect precedent negatively.

There's a reason people spent so long looking for 'the right case' to tackle in SCOTUS.

You are exactly right here my friend.

Having felons pursuing cases to define the scope of the right is a disaster-this is the fastest and surest way to limit it to pieces.