Second, as Range explained, the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” is “hopelessly vague. 69 F.4th at 102. It cannot “mean that every American who gets a traffic ticket” loses her Second Amendment rights.”31 Id. But limiting it to quote “real crimes” like felonies also misses the mark, because some modern felonies “seem minor” and “some misdemeanors seem serious.” Id. The modifier “responsible,” meanwhile, is impossible to apply. “In our Republic of over 330 million people, Americans have widely divergent ideas about what is required for one to be considered a ‘responsible’ citizen. Id.
I know you and I don’t completely agree on this one.
Given our justice system’s propensity for putting violent criminals back on the street I am not for instantly restoring their 2A rights after their time is served. Unless our prison system started to show some evidence that they could actual reform people before putting them back out on the street. Right now it is just a revolving door.
I am however all for non violent criminals having both their 2A rights and voting rights restored upon release.
Just think violent criminals need to prove they are no longer a threat to society before we sanction their ability to carry weapons in public.
That seems reasonable, but how does one prove that and if it is a time-based criterion, for what length of time? Also, you did state “in public”. Does that mean you believe they should be “allowed” to possess them in their homes?
I would say not in public or at home for violent criminals. I know they can illegally get firearms whenever they want. But if they do it illegally and are caught you have a chance to get them back off the streets before they can harm more people.
The how to prove it is above my pay grade. Some possible suggestions I would have are a probationary period whose length is based on their level of violence followed by a thorough review of their actions while on probation and a parol board style hearing where they can argue that they deserve to have their rights reinstated before a judge or some kind of panel.
All sorts of crimes are classified as felonies, even violent felonies, that, with a governor’s signature or a decision of a group of unaccountable judges cease to be felonies. Consider:
Marijuana is legal under many state laws, but possession and sale is still illegal – even a felony in many instances – under federal law, which continues to wage the war on drugs. If Jeff Sessions was the AG, marijuana possession by gun owners would be considered a dangerous felony for which mandatory minimum sentences should be imposed.
Until the Loving case, interracial marriage was illegal in many states, and many states also defined homosexual sex as crimes, even felonies.
In many states, multiple DUIs make one a habitual criminal, and a felon. Likewise being involved in a traffic accident where someone is injured or killed while being a DUI is considered a violent felony.
People convicted of felonies when they are juveniles often have the records expunged when they turn 18. Should juvenile felony convictions – even for violent acts – be a basis for denying them 2A rights when they turn 18?
Desertion can carry the death penalty if done during war time. Should such acts also carry loss of inalienable rights to keep and bear arms?
Think that would depend on the felony and other associated actions. Were they charged with assault for fighting with another kid or did they shoot up a school injuring and/or killing other students?
I cannot claim to know all of the various state- specific regs vis-a-vis felons and guns. At the federal level felons cannot purchase or possess a firearm. Or enter a business where firearms are sold (not sure if this extends to gun shows). The only way this can change is for a federal judge to expunge the felony conviction. The net result of this is that “it never happened.” Keep your eye on Hunter for a real world example coming soon to your neighborhood news outlet.
I may have said this here before, There was a case her a few years back (If I can find a link I’ll post it) where a guy used a gun in clear self defense. During his trial it was found to be self defense so he was exonerated on that charge, in the end the judge said something like. Being a felon does not mean you can not defend yourself. What it does mean is that you can not legally have a firearm. So he got locked up for being a Restricted person in possession of a firearm but not for actually shooting the guy.
A bad juvenile record did not stop the Parkland shooter from acquiring a firearm when he turned 18. From the press coverage I’ve read, he had been handled more than 30 times by local law enforcement, not to mention social service agencies. Nothin’ to see here.
Given that several million Americans purchased AR braces and did not apply for a short barreled tax stamp and did not destroy or turn in their braces, we may see an interesting test (interesting in a horrifying way) of how restrictive the felon laws are with respect to possessing firearms.