Legal StuffJeff Soyer on 20 Nov 2009 07:53 am
Criminal Record and Gun Ownership
A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a Wisconsin man barred from owning firearms because of his criminal record, ruling the lifetime prohibition may violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights and calling into question the future of a 13-year old gun control law.
In a 3-0 decision on Wednesday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a trial judge to take a second look at the evidence that a 1996 federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is constitutional in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that emphasized “the individual right to possess and carry weapons.”
Read the whole thing.
6 Responses to “Criminal Record and Gun Ownership”
Leave a Reply
(Be sure to answer the anti-spam question!)
on 20 Nov 2009 at 10:50 am # PhilaBOR
Wow. Can of worms. On the one hand, I question a lifetime ban for non-violent crimes. On the other hand, if they allow misdemeanor violence convictions to buy/possess guns, there could be a huge backlash when (not if) one of the scumbags shoots his wife.
on 20 Nov 2009 at 2:39 pm # comatus
Let’s play with definitions. If a crime is bad enough to debar the perpetrator the possession of arms, isn’t it serious enough to be called a felony? Legislators were not brave enough to take that step, but had enough cover to sneak additional penalties in through a back door. No way were they going to endanger the voting rights of their most-favored constituency.
The wife-beater’s lobby must have some good connections.
on 20 Nov 2009 at 2:44 pm # Walt
This is just the begining and the Chicago case coming up should push it further. Tell me again why I am so much safer because Martha Stewart is denied her right to self defense with a gun because she lied to the tax man. Denial of any right to any person should be on an individual, case by case, basis determined by a judge in court. Not by any blanket, all encompassing, law.
on 20 Nov 2009 at 3:00 pm # Kresh
I agree with Walt. I have a friend who lost his rights because of 3 DUIs (three strike rule = felon) while he was a young man in New York. He learned not to drink and drive, but now cannot legally own firearms.
He also personally knew someone who had over 12 DUIs at the same time who got off because he knew people. THAT’S the problem with these laws as well, they’re not applied equally.
Hmm, seems I got off topic.
on 20 Nov 2009 at 10:11 pm # drew458
Can of worms is right. Many, if not most, people convicted of misdemeanor violence are still allowed to own guns. It’s only the ones who have been convicted of domestic violence that are banned, even if that conviction happened years before the law was in effect. Total ex post facto:
“This prohibition applies to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any time, even if the conviction occurred prior to the law’s 1996 effective date.” and that is a big no-no in America.
This is the so-called Lautenberg Amendment, and it’s a crock. Always has been. Either make domestic violence a major violent felony or dump this law. Not just ex post facto, but it’s cruel and unusual and excessive punishment IMO, as well as an unequal application of the laws.
But as the article points out, you can become a felon for downloading a song, or for having too small a lobster in your pocket. Perhaps it’s time that A) a whole boatload of puissant little felonies were tossed overboard, and B) the constitutionality of Lautenberg was honestly addressed. Hurray for the 7th Circuit for making the right decision.
Naturally CBS cites all sorts of stare decisis in favor of Lautenberg, but so what? I’m sure there was lots of that to support the Dred Scott decision way back when, and that was wrong too.
on 02 Dec 2009 at 4:11 pm # larry w . Campbell
tell the truth go to federal jail, ready for statements by federal court Judge in US v Me,
Your words page number bottom 175 lines 7 to 13 The court: Well, not that violates > My understanding, which is not from personal experience at all, but just from talking with judges who do this, is they issues hundreds of thousands of these, and that all the Movant “women” have to do in come in and they basically I ‘m afraid of my boyfriend or my husband , and they get this order. For some reason I was under the impression federal gun laws have a purpose, to remove guns from persons who cannot be trusted, I was unaware members of the US Congress and the US Senator and the president who signed 18 USC 922 G 8 into law wanted a new Jim Crow law and wanted state agent Judge to use gender profiling