Legal US appeals court upholds federal ban on felons owning guns

[USMC06RET]

More 2A legal developments.

US appeals court upholds federal ban on felons owning guns

 

[21SF 2.0]

Remind me why we are focusing our 2A battles on this?

 

[FoundFather]

Uh yeah, maybe defending 2A rights of criminals is not top priority, But the modern regualtory state is creating felonies at a furious pace. Here are few that might surprise you: https://www.maxim.com/do_not_migrate/7-felonies-youve-probably-committed-your-lifetime/

 

[treelogger]

But the modern regualtory state is creating felonies at a furious pace. Here are few that might surprise you:

In theory, this is bad.

In practice, it is irrelevant. No sane judge and jury would convict on these offenses. Note that most of those are federal law, so it would require a federal grand jury deciding that someone needs to be charged, a US attorney to run the prosecution, and a federal court to convict. And even if that happened for all the silly cases described in the Maxim article, the conviction would be overthrown on appeal, on the grounds of being de minimis and missing the intent of the law.

While it is true that there are lots of felons, most of them are convicted of garden variety violent crimes, in particular domestic violence. Victimless felony convictions are actually quite rare.

 

[9mmContagion]

Ahh… again I’m reminded of the hypocrisy of my own like minded people! The 2A is a God given right, right? Do the crime, pay the time! If the time is done, and the felon is released, have they not paid the consequence of their actions?! Therefore, rights restored.
IF they CAN’T be trusted with a gun after they’re released, why are they being released?! Seems like we are fighting the wrong thing here! If they can’t be trusted, shouldn’t they still be doing the time?!

 

[21SF 2.0]

Ahh… again I’m reminded of the hypocrisy of my own like minded people! The 2A is a God given right, right? Do the crime, pay the time! If the time is done, and the felon is released, have they not paid the consequence of their actions?! Therefore, rights restored.
IF they CAN’T be trusted with a gun after they’re released, why are they being released?! Seems like we are fighting the wrong thing here! If they can’t be trusted, shouldn’t they still be doing the time?!

it’s a revolving door, the cops even tell them you’ll have court in the morning and get bailed lol

 

[treelogger]

The 2A is a God given right, right?

No, God is not a part of the legal system. The 2A was written by a well-known large group of people after intense and multi-year negotiations; it was then passed and ratified by the completely normal process for amending the constitution. If God was involved at all, it was behind the scenes. The 2A derives its validity from having been legally made part of the laws of this country, no more and no less.

Do the crime, pay the time!

Very few people "do the time"; the maximum sentences for most crimes are way longer than what what most people are convicted to. One of the reasons for shorter jail sentences is that punishment today is often graduated, with long probation and parole after a shorter jail sentence. Part of that bargain is that even after the probation and parole ends, certain rights are not restored, for a long time.

If the time is done, and the felon is released, have they not paid the consequence of their actions?! Therefore, rights restored.

That's not the way our society has designed its punishment system. And I am quite sure that such a proposal would never find approval by the majority of the voters, so it's a non-starter. To understand why not, you need to dig pretty deep into the theory of why we as a society even punish people for crimes. This is an area that philosophers, social scientists and psychologists have studied for millennia; the best summary is probably by Hegel. In a nutshell, there are three reasons to punish: (a) Deterrence, also known as general prevention: do something so nasty to the criminal that everybody else (being a rational actor) thinks twice about committing the crime. (b) Incapacitation, also known as specific prevention, and rehabilitation: since the criminal is very likely to re-offend, in particular soon after the first crime, take away the possibility for them to do so. And while they're locked up, try to teach them how dumb it is to commit crimes. (c) Retribution, also known as restoration: To create a balance, damage the criminal as much as the criminal has damaged the victim (or has damaged society in general, for victimless crimes).

When you say "not paid the consequences", you are only looking at retribution, and ignoring the other reasons for punishment. You are also looking at it in a very black-and-white oversimplification, as if there was exactly a number of years in jail that fit the crime; in reality, our punishment is more nuanced and happens in stages.

IF they CAN’T be trusted with a gun after they’re released, why are they being released?!

Again, you are oversimplification, and now you are only looking at incapacitation: take away the possibility that they can commit crimes. And yes, some people can't be trusted with a gun. Some others can't be trusted with a car (which is why after a certain number of DUI convictions, you have your license taken away, eventually permanently). Other criminals lose the right to ever be an executive of a company (Elizabeth Holmes is an example): given the nature of her crimes, she probably doesn't pose a very large risk to society by being at the wheel of an SUV, but clearly she can not be trusted with any form of SEC filing.

 

[Robdog1]

Ahh… again I’m reminded of the hypocrisy of my own like minded people! The 2A is a God given right, right? Do the crime, pay the time! If the time is done, and the felon is released, have they not paid the consequence of their actions?! Therefore, rights restored.
IF they CAN’T be trusted with a gun after they’re released, why are they being released?! Seems like we are fighting the wrong thing here! If they can’t be trusted, shouldn’t they still be doing the time?!

I disagree. We're spinning our wheels on things that really aren't a huge issue at the moment. We need to be focusing on things like AW bans, mag capacity bans, and other high priority items that affect the general population. We do not need to be focusing on giving criminals weapons, especially not right now. You have to know when to pick your battles and what battles to pick, and this is not one of them with all the crap that's going on in the 2A world (and the country in general.)

 

[9mmContagion]

No, God is not a part of the legal system. The 2A was written by a well-known large group of people after intense and multi-year negotiations; it was then passed and ratified by the completely normal process for amending the constitution. If God was involved at all, it was behind the scenes. The 2A derives its validity from having been legally made part of the laws of this country, no more and no less.


Very few people "do the time"; the maximum sentences for most crimes are way longer than what what most people are convicted to. One of the reasons for shorter jail sentences is that punishment today is often graduated, with long probation and parole after a shorter jail sentence. Part of that bargain is that even after the probation and parole ends, certain rights are not restored, for a long time.


That's not the way our society has designed its punishment system. And I am quite sure that such a proposal would never find approval by the majority of the voters, so it's a non-starter. To understand why not, you need to dig pretty deep into the theory of why we as a society even punish people for crimes. This is an area that philosophers, social scientists and psychologists have studied for millennia; the best summary is probably by Hegel. In a nutshell, there are three reasons to punish: (a) Deterrence, also known as general prevention: do something so nasty to the criminal that everybody else (being a rational actor) thinks twice about committing the crime. (b) Incapacitation, also known as specific prevention, and rehabilitation: since the criminal is very likely to re-offend, in particular soon after the first crime, take away the possibility for them to do so. And while they're locked up, try to teach them how dumb it is to commit crimes. (c) Retribution, also known as restoration: To create a balance, damage the criminal as much as the criminal has damaged the victim (or has damaged society in general, for victimless crimes).

When you say "not paid the consequences", you are only looking at retribution, and ignoring the other reasons for punishment. You are also looking at it in a very black-and-white oversimplification, as if there was exactly a number of years in jail that fit the crime; in reality, our punishment is more nuanced and happens in stages.


Again, you are oversimplification, and now you are only looking at incapacitation: take away the possibility that they can commit crimes. And yes, some people can't be trusted with a gun. Some others can't be trusted with a car (which is why after a certain number of DUI convictions, you have your license taken away, eventually permanently). Other criminals lose the right to ever be an executive of a company (Elizabeth Holmes is an example): given the nature of her crimes, she probably doesn't pose a very large risk to society by being at the wheel of an SUV, but clearly she can not be trusted with any form of SEC filing.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we are on the same level of thinking. The justice system is so far out of touch, it’s unbelievable! I believe the death penalty should be in full swing and used regularly. Same with chopping of hands for thieves. But for now it’s all smoke and mirrors till people actually wake up and stop voting for compassion of criminals.

 

[Malibu]

I believe the death penalty should be in full swing and used regularly. Same with chopping of hands for thieves. But for now it’s all smoke and mirrors till people actually wake up and stop voting for compassion of criminals.

I agree. A murderer who no longer physically exists cannot murder again. A hand that has been removed cannot steal again. If the one-armed bandit is stupid enough to do it again, take the remaining hand as well. And start to administer these punishments in public for all to see.

 

[21SF 2.0]

I agree. A murderer who no longer physically exists cannot murder again. A hand that has been removed cannot steal again. If the one-armed bandit is stupid enough to do it again, take the remaining hand as well. And start to administer these punishments in public for all to see.

Especially women and children/violent crimes etc. like Friday night prime time executions.

 

[Malibu]

In theory, this is bad.

In practice, it is irrelevant. No sane judge and jury would convict on these offenses. Note that most of those are federal law, so it would require a federal grand jury deciding that someone needs to be charged, a US attorney to run the prosecution, and a federal court to convict. And even if that happened for all the silly cases described in the Maxim article, the conviction would be overthrown on appeal, on the grounds of being de minimis and missing the intent of the law.

Those laws are still on the books, and could be used by a lawfare motivated prosecutor. They would exclude a citizen from gun ownership. You say that no sane judge and jury would convict for those; you might be correct about that, but take a look at the 9th circuit court of appeals, and the mental gymnastics they go to in order to continue the assault on our freedoms. Then try to convince me that those judges are “sane”.
Meanwhile, the list of offenses that prohibit gun ownership increases, to include misdemeanors. It has only become worse.

 

[treelogger]

That would have to start out with a federal prosecutor (I think those are called "US attorneys"). Doing something like that would be a career-ending move.

Then, in spite of your opinion that the 9th circuit is insane (I strongly disagree), and that be extension many federal judges are insane (I even more strongly disagree), and that the perform "mental gymnastics", it would have to survive a judge, a jury, and several dozen appeals court judges. Sorry, just not going to happen. The level of paranoia here is astounding, and the connection to reality is getting threadbare.

 

[compulsivegungrabber]

In theory, this is bad.

In practice, it is irrelevant. No sane judge and jury would convict on these offenses. Note that most of those are federal law, so it would require a federal grand jury deciding that someone needs to be charged, a US attorney to run the prosecution, and a federal court to convict. And even if that happened for all the silly cases described in the Maxim article, the conviction would be overthrown on appeal, on the grounds of being de minimis and missing the intent of the law.

While it is true that there are lots of felons, most of them are convicted of garden variety violent crimes, in particular domestic violence. Victimless felony convictions are actually quite rare.

I think recent examples of lawfare point out the end motivations. If you have dough, yeah, a few million dollars later, you might get justice. If you don't, it is either going to bankrupt you, or you are going to plead out to avoid the prosecutor stacking charges.

 

[USMC06RET]

I think recent examples of lawfare point out the end motivations. If you have dough, yeah, a few million dollars later, you might get justice. If you don't, it is either going to bankrupt you, or you are going to plead out to avoid the prosecutor stacking charges.

This is 100% accurate and why we need major reform in our criminal justice system. If you get charged with a felony as low as a class D, you can expect to easily spend upwards of $100,000 in legal fees to defend yourself, even a class E felony is going to cost you $25 - 50K.