9th Circuit Reverses Felon in Possession felony firearm conviction of CA man

[thperez1972]

Free as in the community, subject to the whims of those who would harm them, just like the legally free (e.g., you and I).

The bigger question to me isn’t what the law is. It is what it is, and we need laws. And most people will alter their actions to comply with the law in order to stay free.

I see the Constitution/Bill of Rights as the way the founding fathers set forth what government CANNOT limit. They’re forming a new nation based on personal freedoms and God-given rights. They know laws are needed, but they’re putting together a founding document to enumerate the non-negotiables.

First thing they say is untouchable is the freedom of a man to speak what he wants, worship how he wants (etc.). In effect make whatever laws you want, but you CANNOT impose on these rights.

The second prohibition they place on the new government is that it CANNOT infringe on a man’s right to own and carry “arms”. Period. It doesn’t say which kind (options were obviously much different then, but the left no wiggle room). And it doesn’t place limits on the “who”.

The question then is at what point CAN the Republic step in and override a provision of the Bill of Rights? There are legal and judicial precedent where this has been decided. (Because a law exists does not mean it’s Constitutional.) So we have to abide by these or face punishment from our government, no matter the intent of the founding fathers. Fair enough.

That brings me to the larger philosophical question around which most of my discussion revolves: why shouldn’t all men have the right to defend their lives without facing punishment from the government? Is this right truly God-given, a right of basic human survival, or is it limited by past indiscretions?

I may think I know that answer, but it’s my answer - which ultimately doesn’t matter. And NOTHING in my position is in SUPPORT of the violent felon in the sense of me advocating for them as bad dudes. If we presume that all laws are followed by all people, good and bad, surely we’d be in a safer world with the existing laws restricting gun access of felons. But as I’ve stated multiple times, that world does not and never will exist regardless of the law. I believe that although a man is a felon he has the right to defend himself in a legitimate exercise of self defense. And since felons get guns anyhow the felon in possession laws are worthless IMO. The better solution is address the problem where no limits have been placed - tougher penalties on violent crime and ENFORCEMENT OF THESE LAWS (I.e., keep their butts in prison!)!

What scares me is the door that’s suddenly been blown wide open to limit free speech, religious freedom and whatever else I’m missing. The Bill of Rights is effectively being tossed to the wayside. And I think the history of 2A infringement and the incessant barrage of 2A infringing rules being imposed sets the precedent and paves the way for it’s (BoR’s) dismantling. The good news is that although the politically- driven courts are trying to re-write law, we are scoring important victories against many of these infringements. I hope this continues. Of course we all know that at some point the USSC is gonna flip. And we’re in trouble.

I would suggest the bill of rights does place a limit on the "who." I would say a strong case could be made based on the 5th amendment. "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." As long as due process was followed, someone could be deprived of liberty. I say the 2nd amendment is an example of that liberty.

 

[Strick8]

I would suggest the bill of rights does place a limit on the "who." I would say a strong case could be made based on the 5th amendment. "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." As long as due process was followed, someone could be deprived of liberty. I say the 2nd amendment is an example of that liberty.

And ample case law exists to support that the government can and will limit (infringe?) 2A rights.

What I am contemplating as to the “who” is specific to the reading of the 2nd, which doesn’t say, for example, “…shall not be infringed unless the citizen is a felon.”

As you point out the 5th states that a liberty can be taken as long as due process is given, though not specific to what those liberties might be. Can free speech be taken? Religious liberty? Most would say “no”, you cannot take away free speech. You cannot prohibit free worship. So why is 2A protection, a protection granted under its separate and exclusive clause of the BoR, subject to take? Does the 5th actually contemplate the 2nd (or any other Constitutional Amendment) as it relates to due process and the take of liberties? I don’t know.

Regardless of what the founding fathers actually meant (and we’ll never know) the reality is that it’s been determined by the courts that the 2A can in fact be infringed on. Right or wrong. So we live with it. And now we see the creep onto our first amendment right to free speech and religious freedom. I imagine we’ll see law written limiting free speech, limiting what constitutes free practice of religion, and we’ll see people jailed right here in America for “breaking” these laws. The Constitution be damned!

Last thing, as I’ve beaten a dead horse in this thread. It boils down to this for me and the real discussion I’ve been trying to spark throughout this thread: if a man is a felon, a felon prohibited from possessing a firearm, does he follow the “law”? Or does he keep that pistol on his nightstand because the protection and survival of his own life and those of his family more important?

 

[323MAR]

Once this goes before SCOTUS and they uphold this ruling, it will help the 2A community by removing the governments ability to criminalize and disarm political dissidents and minorities. It will also help government to limit the liability and expenses involved with the prosecution of certain non-violent "crimes."

 

[thperez1972]

People in prison have their 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights curtailed.

 

[Mitch Dufour]

If a man is a danger to society WITH a firearm, then is he not a danger to society with out one as well? And if he is a danger to society, should he be part of it?

 

[jdindadell]

I hate reality tv, but would pay to watch every episode of "guns in jail". This just seems like a logical solution to the overcrowding problem. Plus, whoever is left would likely have some super awesome skills and they could work off the rest of their sentence in an accelerated manner by being a spy in other countries or some other type of espionage against our enemies. Perhaps I should just write crappy fiction novels and stop posting...

 

[Strick8]

I hate reality tv, but would pay to watch every episode of "guns in jail". This just seems like a logical solution to the overcrowding problem. Plus, whoever is left would likely have some super awesome skills and they could work off the rest of their sentence in an accelerated manner by being a spy in other countries or some other type of espionage against our enemies. Perhaps I should just write crappy fiction novels and stop posting...

Any of you boys ever dealt with that jdindadell fella? I ran into him a couple times. Sumpin ain’t right with that boy. Not sure I should transact with him. I bet he dresses up like his favorite gun-wielding movie character with a Naboo blaster strapped to his hip. I ain’t judgin’, I’m just sayin’…

 

[jdindadell]

Any of you boys ever dealt with that jdindadell fella? I ran into him a couple times. Sumpin ain’t right with that boy. Not sure I should transact with him. I bet he dresses up like his favorite gun-wielding movie character with a Naboo blaster strapped to his hip. I ain’t judgin’, I’m just sayin’…

Look just cause I have an unhealthy addiction to Japanese pron and lust after fictitious characters does not mean anything. Quite a few of the "real men" on this board think that I look quite fetching as Princess Amidala. At least I think that is what they were whispering in my ear over my shoulder.

And I am quite well read, you would be lucky to see my collection of graphic novels. In fact, I think that there may be something wrong with you? You are not one of those "St George" type people that I heard about on CNN are you?

 

[Strick8]

Look just cause I have an unhealthy addiction to Japanese pron and lust after fictitious characters does not mean anything. Quite a few of the "real men" on this board think that I look quite fetching as Princess Amidala. At least I think that is what they were whispering in my ear over my shoulder.

And I am quite well read, you would be lucky to see my collection of graphic novels. In fact, I think that there may be something wrong with you? You are not one of those "St George" type people that I heard about on CNN are you?

 

[jdindadell]

Are you fat shaming me? You must like em rail skinny.

More cushion for the pushin', thats my motto.

Or maybe I am reading you wrong? Perhaps you do want to see me in full costume. Just send me a pm, we can work out the logistics.

 

[Strick8]

Actually I AM one of those St. George people! So when I play dress up I carry an Ascalon clone, not a Naboo blaster.

Sigh… perhaps I should back down. You know the old saying… “Never bring a sword to a Naboo blaster fight.”

 

[Manimal]

Actually I AM one of those St. George people! So when I play dress up I carry an Ascalon clone, not a Naboo blaster.

Sigh… perhaps I should back down. You know the old saying… “Never bring a sword to a Naboo blaster fight.”

bro, my dog was just saying hello, wtf

 

[John1994]

If the crime wasn't extremely violent or drugs related, I think the process of restoring gun rights should be available without a great hassle. I know a few people to have been in physical altercations and before the court date were already flagged and couldn't purchase a firearm. To put in perspective, a person with a DUI can still purchase alcohol, restore their license, and purchase a vehicle. If I'm not mistaken. Louisiana doesn't forbid felons from having a firearm so long as the crime wasn't violent or drug related but federally no felon can be in possession of a firearm.

 

[machinedrummer]

Of course the 9th will give 2A rights to convicted felons…it’s law abiding citizens they don’t want to have weapons. But yes I’m ok with a non violent felon getting their 2A rights restored after they serve their sentence. Murder or Pedo should never see freedom again.

 

[323MAR]

Look just cause I have an unhealthy addiction to Japanese pron and lust after fictitious characters does not mean anything. Quite a few of the "real men" on this board think that I look quite fetching as Princess Amidala. At least I think that is what they were whispering in my ear over my shoulder.

And I am quite well read, you would be lucky to see my collection of graphic novels. In fact, I think that there may be something wrong with you? You are not one of those "St George" type people that I heard about on CNN are you?

After the Marines, I got back into collecting Star Wars, Star Trek, Transformers, and GI JOE. The Wife of my Wife's Cousin tried to tell me to "grow up" to which I asked her "Perhaps I should do drugs and abuse alcohol like you did?" The "mundane and uncultured bitch*(quoted from my Wife) stormed away from the dinner table crying her eyes out to which I laughed. That was the last time that degenerate felon told me anything about that and actually started being nice to me. Since then, my Wife's Cousin divorced her and married a good woman from Nashville, after their Daughter went off to college.
Back then, I really didn't take anything from any civilians whatsoever. I am a bit more tolerant these days.