National Federal Judge Rules Felons Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

[The Heretic]

Federal Judge Rules Felons Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

Convicted felons do not have gun rights, according to a new federal ruling.

thereload.com

Read More

 

[Barfly]

I don't see an issue with this. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but I also support holding people accountable for their actions.

 

[The Heretic]

I don't see an issue with this. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but I also support holding people accountable for their actions.

Someone goes to prison for possessing marijuana where there were no guns involved in the crime?

How about felony theft - such as embezzling?

Once someone has paid their penalty for breaking the law, most who did not commit a crime of violence or have a history of violent crimes, should have all rights restored.

 

[Barfly]

To my knowledge, simple possession of weed isn't a felony, unless they have a large amount and intent to distribute or sell.

I give zero F*cks about thieves and don't care if they lose their rights.

Committing a felony isn't something that just accidentally happens. There are, of course, exceptions to everything, but I feel as though criminals aren't held accountable enough for what they do anymore. The soft-on-crime mentality of many of today's prosecutors, judges and politicians is just maddening. Hell, a good portion of felonies committed in this day and age are plead down to gross misdemeanors it seems like anyways.

 

[The Heretic]

To my knowledge, simple possession of weed isn't a felony, unless they have a large amount and intent to distribute or sell.

Oregon Possession Laws & Penalties
More than 8 ounces: Class B Violation. A ticket, not a criminal offense.
More than 16 ounces: You face a Class B Misdemeanor criminal charge.
More than 32 ounces: You face a Class C Misdemeanor felony charge.

Committing a felony isn't something that just accidentally happens. There are, of course, exceptions to everything, but I feel as though criminals aren't held accountable enough for what they do anymore. The soft-on-crime mentality of many of today's prosecutors, judges and politicians is just maddening. Hell, a good portion of felonies committed in this day and age are plead down to gross misdemeanors it seems like anyways.

Tall that to somebody who has a pistol brace or a 14" barrel with what they thought was a soldered/pinned flash hider that wasn't soldered or pinned, just thread locked. Or a person with a 20 round mag in OR or WA that the state says has no serial # and you don't have a receipt before Dec 8th 2022.

 

[ma96782]

I don't see an issue with this. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but I also support holding people accountable for their actions.

If the USA is going to go that route.
Then why not also..............

Prohibit a convicted FELON from VOTING?
Rrrrright.....bad decisions from the past should hurt.

How about allowing us regular/non-criminal people to see...... a convicted FELON's credit ratings/financial statements/reports, etc.....
Yeah, so we (honest people) don't get swindled by them in the future. Rrrrright.....I wouldn't want to rent them my home.

Prohibit a convicted felon from running for any political office.
WAIT, Wait, wait......getting into a political office is a viable job option for someone so "creative and industrious".

Awwww......Come On Man.
Like his old man.....*Hunter should have a future to serve the American Public.





Is that you Brandon?

Humm........there is probably MORE but, it'll have to wait. I guess.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....*YES.....Hunter hasn't been convicted (as of yet).

Nor, have some other very famous Politicians. But IF the truth be known......

 

[Barfly]

Oregon Possession Laws & Penalties
More than 8 ounces: Class B Violation. A ticket, not a criminal offense.
More than 16 ounces: You face a Class B Misdemeanor criminal charge.
More than 32 ounces: You face a Class C Misdemeanor felony charge.

Tall that to somebody who has a pistol brace or a 14" barrel with what they thought was a soldered/pinned flash hider that wasn't soldered or pinned, just thread locked. Or a person with a 20 round mag in OR or WA that the state says has no serial # and you don't have a receipt before Dec 8th 2022.

Somebody sitting on two pounds of weed, isn't simple possession, LOL.

Serial number on a magazine...?? With the 11+rd mags issue, the state would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you didn't possess the magazine before the cutoff. That's the way it works, not the other way around. Besides, that is a misdemeanor, at least in WA.

If somebody is buying a short barrel that is supposed to be pinned and welded to make 16", it is pretty obvious if it is or not. You can see the pin and see a weld, if it is in-fact pinned and welded. If you are going that route, it's on the buyer to make damn sure it is compliant. I never did see the point of getting a barrel less than 16", just to pin and weld an extension or long muzzle device to bring it to 16"... That's beside the point, I suppose.

Pistol brace issue has been discussed ad nauseam on forums, in the news and all over the internet, and I would hope by this point that everyone is aware.

Now, I don't want to see somebody get into trouble for ignorance, but folks need to do their due diligence and never simply assume that they are legal. Especially when they are dealing with firearms.

 

[The Heretic]

Serial number on a magazine...?? With the 11+rd mags issue, the state would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you didn't possess the magazine before the cutoff. That's the way it works, not the other way around. Besides, that is a misdemeanor, at least in WA.

Nope. Wrong. Remains to be seen in court. The law states that the person in possession of the mag has to prove they possessed it before the cutoff date. Read the laws (both the initiative and 348).

 

[Barfly]

If the USA is going to go that route.
Then why not also..............

Prohibit a convicted FELON from VOTING?
Rrrrright.....bad decisions from the past should hurt.

How about allowing us regular/non-criminal people to see...... a convicted FELON's credit ratings/financial statements/reports, etc.....
Yeah, so we (honest people) don't get swindled by them in the future.

Prohibit a convicted felon from running any political office.
WAIT, Wait, wait......getting into a political office is a viable job option for someone so "creative and industrious".

Humm........there is probably MORE but, it'll have to wait. I guess.

Aloha, Mark

USA isn't "going that route". Prohibiting felons from possessing firearms has been the practice for quite some time.

WIth regard to the voting thing, you automatically get your right to vote back after serving your sentence, in WA. I don't have an issue with this.


as for the rest of those things, that's just silly and has nothing to do with preventing a felon from owning a gun.

 

[ma96782]

It's about SAFETY.

If you're free to walk amongst the rest of us. Then.......what does that say?

BUT, But, but............to start. Is it too much to ask that criminals actually serve their full time?
Or, that those sentenced to DEATH actually have the sentence carried out in a timely manner?

Aloha, Mark

PS.........OK........maybe "full time" just costs too much. So, maybe a revamp of the punishment times is needed too?

Also......you're RIGHT about "going that route".
However, have you ever watched an old movie (Western) where a guy just gets out of prison and the Prison Warden hands back the guy's gun? Yeah.

 

[Barfly]

Nope. Wrong. Remains to be seen in court. The law states that the person in possession of the mag has to prove they possessed it before the cutoff date. Read the laws (both the initiative and 348).

The law doesn't ban possession of said mags, so I don't even see a need to prove that you owned it before the cutoff.
I am of course, talking about WA, nor OR. I have not read the OR bill or initiative.

 

[The Heretic]

However, have you ever watched an old movie where a guy just gets out of prison and the Prison Warden hands back the guy's gun? Yeah.

 

[Barfly]

It's about SAFETY.

If you're free to walk amongst the rest of us. Then.......what does that say?

BUT, But, but............to start. Is it too much to ask that criminals actually serve their full time?
Or, that those sentenced to DEATH actually have the sentence carried out in a timely manner?

Aloha, Mark

PS.........OK........maybe "full time" just costs too much. So, maybe a revamp of the punishment times is needed too?

Also......you're RIGHT about "going that route".
However, have you ever watched an old movie (Western) where a guy just gets out of prison and the Prison Warden hands back the guy's gun? Yeah.

I am ALL FOR criminals actually serving their full sentences. Those who are given the death penalty should only be given enough time for an appeal. Then if conviction is upheld, the sentence should be carried out. I think it is ludicrous that people are on death row for a decade or more, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, each1

We are kind of derailing the original post though.

 

[ma96782]

The ideas that I threw out there was in an effort to try to have people THINK more about their own lines. FREEDOM. What it means. When is it too much? And does the GOVT need to always be stepping in?

SAFETY.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Barfly]

The ideas that I threw out there was in an effort to try to have people THINK more about their own lines. FREEDOM. What it means. When is it too much? And does the GOVT need to always be stepping in?

SAFETY.

Aloha, Mark

I can appreciate that.

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

 

[The Heretic]

The law doesn't ban possession of said mags, so I don't even see a need to prove that you owned it before the cutoff.
I am of course, talking about WA, nor OR. I have not read the OR bill or initiative.

SB348:

(5) [As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be] It is an affirmative defense, as provided
in ORS [166.055] 161.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine
in this state by any person[, provided] that:
(a)(A) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before [the effective date of this
2022 Act] December 8, 2022, and maintained in the person's control or possession; or
[(b)] (B) The possession of a large-capacity magazine was obtained by a person who, on or after
[the effective date of this section] December 8, 2022, acquired possession of the large-capacity magazine
by operation of law upon the death of a former owner who was in legal possession of the
large-capacity magazine;

An affirmative defense is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.

I.E., the burden of proof is not with the state, but with the defendant.

Burden of proof as to defenses

(1)

When a "defense," other than an "affirmative defense" as defined in subsection (2) of this section, is raised at a trial, the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2)

When a defense, declared to be an "affirmative defense" by chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

(3)

The state is not required to negate a defense as defined in subsection (1) of this section unless it is raised by the defendant. "Raised by the defendant" means either notice in writing to the state before commencement of trial or affirmative evidence by a defense witness in the defendant's case in chief. [1971 c.743 §4]

Also note the date. This is an ex post facto law. A LOT of people bought (and still are buying) mags with capacities greater than 10 rounds, because the injunction against 114.
---
My point is, and remains, that it is not hard to become a convicted felon quite innocently (irony intended) by unintentionally breaking unconstitutional laws (most drug laws are as unconstitutional as almost all gun laws).

So be careful; send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.

 

[MichaelH]

I think the issue is that the defendant is disputing criminal liability for breaking the law, after the fact, when he certainly knew it was illegal for him to possess a firearm based on his status. He didn't challenge the law before he got caught and convicted. Amazing that this felon had no hesitation to do what he wants even if it's a felony. If there is no scheme or process for a rehabilitated felon or a non-violent felon to get their 2A rights restored, maybe then there is a different outcome.

Recent arguments against laws regulating firearms have been, enforce existing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or prosecute them to the max for illegal possession, fund mental health access, enforce red flag laws, and, less so, enact and enforce safe storage laws or permit to purchase regimes, BUT DON'T BAN ANYTHING! For each of those solutions to reduce excess gun violence put forth by pro-2A folks other 2A folks complain how each violates the 2A. Sure the pro-2A community is not monolithic but the pro-gun control folks are probably laughing at the inconsistency.

 

[JRuby]

Prohibit a convicted felon from running for any political office.
WAIT, Wait, wait......getting into a political office is a viable job option for someone so "creative and industrious".

I cannot agree more with you for once - I assume that will include Trump

 

[CamoDeafie]

I do not see where in the 2A does it say "the right of the People except felons/criminals to keep and bear arms"

Put in historical perspective. If the Colonies had lost the war against the Crown, the leaders of the Rebellion would have been tried and found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging for treason and high crimes. In accordance with the British Common Law, they were already "criminals, felons, traitors" and so the founders/Framers of the Bill of Rights clearly fully intended that the 2A is for all citizens of the US.. there have been a few cases where Judges found that non-citizens have the right to self defense, including 2A protections.. and in fact, it was generally accepted that once free, the convict gets full rights up until 1968.