Ninth Circuit says Felon has a right to possess a firearm for self defense...

[rb288]

Wabatukian said...
"They just shouldn't be released into society with the root causes of their violence unaddressed."

This is the simple answer that seems to be completely ignored by the liberal weenie left.

 

[Gabriel]

Wabatukian said...
"They just shouldn't be released into society with the root causes of their violence unaddressed."

This is the simple answer that seems to be completely ignored by the liberal weenie left.

"Shall not be infringed" is the simple answer being ignored by the weenie right in this thread. It sounds like you are one of those "I'm pro 2A, but..." kind of people.

 

[rb288]

"Shall not be infringed" is the simple answer being ignored by the weenie right in this thread. It sounds like you are one of those "I'm pro 2A, but..." kind of people.

Nope, not at all.
Violent criminals have no business being released back on the streets.
At the same time, a person convicted of a non-violent offense that has done their time and been released should have the same Constitutional rights as anyone else.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Wabatukian said...
"They just shouldn't be released into society with the root causes of their violence unaddressed."

This is the simple answer that seems to be completely ignored by the liberal weenie left.

The Liberal Gun Club is all about root cause mitigation. I don't agree with a lot of what they say there aside from that and absolute right to guns, but they're right on those two items.

 

[Wabatuckian]

I agree.
If someone is to violent to be trusted with a firearm lock them up, or put them down like you do a sick animal.Things this country did before.



Hard labor, beans, rice, and water only for food, no TV, or entertainment including books that are meant for entertainment. Only books that have educational purposes. That might give incentive not to comment crime in the future.

My first stint in college was done with the goal of becoming a police officer.

I ultimately decided not to because I disagreed with the prison system as it's instituted today.

It's all about punishment. While yes, people who do bad things need to be punished, they also often don't possess the tools and skills to survive in society, and therefore go back to offending once they are released.

They don't need the be just sitting around watching TV and surfing the Internet.

As long as I'm contributing tax dollars to support inmates, I have zero issues with said dollars going to GED and vocational programs.

Learning doesn't always come easily to people; half of the country, by definition of the rating, have IQ scores of under 100.

I suspect that, if they have nothing else to do but learn, they'll pick up at least something being taught out of sheer boredom if that's all they're given to do.

 

[NHT3]

I'm sure they will find a way to turn this ruling on it's head and make it apply to Hunter if necessary. I'm guessing Brandon already has some sort of a pre-pardon written, possibly covering himself as well as Hunter JIC.

 

[JAL]

Also @JAL
So as of now none violent felons can buy firearms?
Or just possess firearms?
Or it isn't that far along yet?

Is this a continuation of the same case IIRC from Illinois about a felon being allowed to own a firearm?

NO! To all the questions, including the last one.
I'll quote the last paragraph of the 9th Circuit panel's Majority Opinion with emphasis on the last sentence (in bold) . . .

Duarte is an American citizen, and thus one of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. The Second
Amendment’s plain text and historically understood meaning therefore presumptively guarantee his individual
right to possess a firearm for self-defense. The Government failed to rebut that presumption by demonstrating that
permanently depriving Duarte of this fundamental right is otherwise consistent with our Nation’s history. We therefore
hold that § 922(g)(1) violates Duarte’s Second Amendment rights and is unconstitutional as applied to him.

REVERSED; CONVICTION VACATED.

As is many times the outcome with criminal conviction appeals versus civil case appeals, a constitutional question that overturns the conviction will only only be applied to the defendant. It can go either way depending on what the court wants to do. It's clear they didn't want to completely nullify that portion of the Federal Law. The very end of the last sentence was what I looked for in the majority opinion: "as applied to him." The decision is therefore very narrow. It applies to nobody else. That said, this case will be cited by others similarly situated within the 9th Circuit, who will now appeal their 922(g)(1) convictions to their Federal District Courts, hoping to have them overturned with the District Court comparing their situation and circumstances to Duarte's. Doesn't guarantee the District Court will overturn it. Someone in a different circuit could try a Hail Mary and cite it, but the odds of getting their conviction overturned is much lower.

Hope this helps you understand the decision and opinion in this one.

As an aside regarding the Rahimi case before SCOTUS. That one is also a criminal conviction, and SCOTUS could easily issue an opinion and decision affirming the overturning of Rahimi's conviction, and applying it only to Rahimi and his conviction, with the suggestion the U.S. Attorney and District Court, and Rahimi's State prosecutors try him on other charges they chose not to pursue. Rahimi is a Bad Dude. Why he wasn't prosecuted on the other stuff he did baffles me. His State and Feds put their eggs in one basket. If any of it is not past the Statute of Limitations, they should indict and try him -- without waiting for SCOTUS.

 

[OutdoorDad]

I'm sure they will find a way to turn this ruling on it's head and make it apply to Hunter if necessary. I'm guessing Brandon already has some sort of a pre-pardon written, possibly covering himself as well as Hunter JIC.

i don't think so...
i think he will take it to create case law

 

[chipbennett]

I know I'm an outlier here on INGO when it comes to this topic, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone that's free to walk the streets with the rest of us is free to keep and bear arms as well.

To me, the correct solution is to arm yourself and prepare yourself in case bad people come your direction, not take away the rights of those we find scary.

But I'm a purist in this regard.

I am the same. Anyone among free society has all the rights attendant to free society, including RKBA. Anyone unfit to be trusted to exercise RKBA because they are violent offenders should not be left loose among free society. Such violent offenders should be kept behind bars unless/until they are no longer a threat to abuse RKBA or otherwise continue to be violent offenders.