Got this back from the NRA Civil Rights defense people today
The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund recently supported a similar case in Montana and lost. The issue was whether Montana's restoration of rights satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(20), or is it insufficient based on the holding in Caron v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 2007 (1998), which held a person cannot be convicted under federal law of being a felon in possession of a firearm stemming from a state felony conviction if the state law that removed the disability allows the person to possess all firearms (rifle, shotgun, pistol). On the other hand, a person may be convicted under federal law of being a felon in possession of a firearm stemming from a state felony conviction if state law allows such a person to possess only certain firearms, e.g., rifles and shotguns, but not pistols. In this case, Mr. Van de hule was denied permission to purchase a hunting rifle following a background check. A lawsuit was filed. The court held that Montana’s refusal to grant a license to carry a pistol to a person whose civil rights have been restored meant that under Caron he could not possess any firearm under federal law. Consequently, a person with restored rights may be denied a license to carry a pistol concealed. Van der hule filed an amended complaint in U.S. District Court seeking declaratory relief that the full restoration of rights by Montana no longer makes him a prohibited person under 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(1), and that the federal background check system should be ordered to issue a proceed response to a background check. The court denied relief on September 15, 2009. It ruled that his inability to obtain a Montana license to carry a concealed firearm means that he falls under the all or nothing prohibition established in the Caron v. United States decision. An appeal was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The court on July 16, 2014, held that Van de hule falls under the all or nothing prohibition established in Caron. The court applied intermediate scrutiny and held that his Second Amendment rights were not violated. Van Der Hule v. Holder, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13531.
I sent back a email asking if it would be viable to challenge the constitutionality of LARS 40:1379.3(c)(10). Will see what they say.
This is the first I had heard about this problem in Montana.
The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund recently supported a similar case in Montana and lost. The issue was whether Montana's restoration of rights satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(20), or is it insufficient based on the holding in Caron v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 2007 (1998), which held a person cannot be convicted under federal law of being a felon in possession of a firearm stemming from a state felony conviction if the state law that removed the disability allows the person to possess all firearms (rifle, shotgun, pistol). On the other hand, a person may be convicted under federal law of being a felon in possession of a firearm stemming from a state felony conviction if state law allows such a person to possess only certain firearms, e.g., rifles and shotguns, but not pistols. In this case, Mr. Van de hule was denied permission to purchase a hunting rifle following a background check. A lawsuit was filed. The court held that Montana’s refusal to grant a license to carry a pistol to a person whose civil rights have been restored meant that under Caron he could not possess any firearm under federal law. Consequently, a person with restored rights may be denied a license to carry a pistol concealed. Van der hule filed an amended complaint in U.S. District Court seeking declaratory relief that the full restoration of rights by Montana no longer makes him a prohibited person under 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(1), and that the federal background check system should be ordered to issue a proceed response to a background check. The court denied relief on September 15, 2009. It ruled that his inability to obtain a Montana license to carry a concealed firearm means that he falls under the all or nothing prohibition established in the Caron v. United States decision. An appeal was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The court on July 16, 2014, held that Van de hule falls under the all or nothing prohibition established in Caron. The court applied intermediate scrutiny and held that his Second Amendment rights were not violated. Van Der Hule v. Holder, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13531.
I sent back a email asking if it would be viable to challenge the constitutionality of LARS 40:1379.3(c)(10). Will see what they say.
This is the first I had heard about this problem in Montana.
