No Holds Barred: News, Opinion and Commentary
This is The Header Then

Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

July 19th, 2008 . by TexasFred
WASHINGTON (AP) - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month’s Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

Full Story Here:
Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

You just have to know, it’s bound to happen. Some criminal loving defense attorney, the scum of the earth, is going to try and bastardize the USC and the 2nd Amendment so that a convicted felon can own a gun legally.

I don’t know how everyone else feels about this, but in MY opinion, anyone that has been convicted of a felony, that hasn’t had that conviction overturned and expunged from their record, knows full well that by their commission of a felonious offense, and their conviction of said felonious offense, they have forfeited their rights to own firearms in most locales.

And quite honestly, I have absolutely NO problem with that being the law of the land. An example of some state laws, this one being from Wisconsin:  

A prohibited person is a person who is specifically prohibited from exercising his or her right to bear arms. Wisconsin statutes provide specific laws about who is prohibited from carrying a firearm. In general, prohibited persons include anyone who has been convicted of a felony, as well as anyone who was found not guilty or not criminally responsible by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect or illness, whether the determination was made in this or another state, unless a court ordered otherwise. Plea bargaining for a felony conviction is still a felony conviction. Felon In Possession Firearms Or Dangerous Weapons

And then there this little gem from Washington state:

As a sentence condition and requirement, offenders under the supervision of the department of corrections pursuant to chapter 9.94A RCW shall not own, use, or possess firearms or ammunition. In addition to any penalty imposed pursuant to RCW 9.41.040 when applicable, offenders found to be in actual or constructive possession of firearms or ammunition shall be subject to the appropriate violation process and sanctions as provided for in *RCW 9.94A.634. Firearms or ammunition owned, used, or possessed by offenders may be confiscated by community corrections officers and turned over to the Washington state patrol for disposal as provided in RCW 9.41.098. RCW 9.41.045: Possession by offenders.

OK, I’m just not seeing a lot of *wiggle room* here. The laws are fairly clear in their *shall not possess* I think. Some states DO make provisions but are very vague in their public statements:

Felon in Possession of a Firearm MCL 750.224f
If you are a convicted felon you must meet certain requirements before you are lawfully allowed to carry a firearm. If you, as a qualifying felon, are caught in possession of a firearm, you could be facing felony charges and a prison term of 5 years along with potential fines of up to $5,000.
Michigan Firearms Charges

If you are a convicted felon and still have a felony arrest and conviction on your record, haven’t you placed yourself in a position of not being able to legally own a fire arm?

I don’t deny anyone the right to self defense, but a violent felon has placed himself in a position to face a loss of rights, and perhaps, after a period of time and rehabilitation, there could be some form of reinstatement, but the criteria would have to be very strict and well enforced.

I guess Tony Baretta said it best, “If ya can’t do the time, don’t do the crime…”, or, as in Robert Blake’s case, at least have a sympathetic jury. :?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

8 Responses to “Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons”

  1. comment number 1 by: JR

    You are looking at this the wrong way Fred.

    If an individual can not be trusted with a firearm, why trust that individual to be a part of free society? Instead of arguing about a violent felons right to defend himself with a firearm, we should be demanding that society has a right to be free from violent felons.

    All free citizens have a right to defend themselves. This right is not given by government. Just as .gov can only take a citizens life for the most abhorrent crimes, it should have similar restrictions on when to take away an individuals right to self defense. Goblins who commit crimes that would preclude them from the right to self defense need to be locked away from society forever.

    If all free citizens were allowed the right to keep and bear arms, then there would be a demand from society to isolate those who could not be trusted with that right. That demand would be answered and there would be far less violent goblins on the streets and our violent crime rate would significantly diminish.

    So, should we worry about “felons” being allowed to defend themselves. Or should we worry about violent goblins being allowed to mingle with the rest of us?

  2. comment number 2 by: TexasFred

    So, should we worry about “felons” being allowed to defend themselves. Or should we worry about violent goblins being allowed to mingle with the rest of us?

    Damn good point, but I have seen, and personally know some folks that committed felony offenses, but they weren’t *violent* felonies, they were, quite literally, youthful indiscretions, and they are now pillars of the community…

    Maybe there’s not a grey area, maybe there is, but there is NO WAY IN HELL a violent felon should EVER be able to legally own a gun, not in my opinion anyway..

  3. comment number 3 by: Katie

    I do believe that this issue was once ruled upon. The state has the right to limit the freedoms of certain individuals. Convicted felons are in this category. The state has the right to take away their right to vote, have a firearm, even drive a car. This is the “reward” for criminal behavior and the courts have already ruled upon it.

    I’m not too worried. No judge in his or her right mind would give guns to a con.

  4. comment number 4 by: TexasFred

    Katie, there’s a lotta judges that are in their *LEFT* mind, that’s what scares me… :?

  5. comment number 5 by: BobF

    Any military person convicted in a Courts Martial is a convicted felon. A young GI going AWOL because of a Dear John letter who gets Courts Martialed instead of non-judicial punishment carries a felony conviction with him the rest of their lives. I don’t believe this individual is a threat to society and shouldn’t forfeit his constitutional rights

    When a person commits and is convicted of crimes, they have to pay the fine and that fine is a loss of rights. Prison is a loss of the right to live among free people, just like the loss of the right to own firearms. They’ve forfeited their rights by committing crimes against society and the constitution.

    Like every crime, I think the circumstances involved should be considered with revoking constitutional rights of convicted criminals. A simple clear set of “rules” can be legislated by congress on what constitutes the loss of the right to own firearms. To me, it’s not rocket science but to politicians it’s mile high stacks of paper to figure out.

  6. comment number 6 by: Robocop

    I have no problem either way. Convicted Felons are going to acquire weapons regardless. The beauty of the court decision is that we can now shoot back.

  7. comment number 7 by: TexasFred

    The beauty of the court decision is that we can now shoot back.

    Robocop, I didn’t need the SCOTUS to tell me that… I live in Texas, the HOMEOWNER is King of the Castle!! :P

  8. comment number 8 by: Bloviating Zeppelin

    Overarching questions as have been asked here:

    1. Convicted felon?
    2. On parole? Conditions of parole?
    3. On probation? Searchable probation? Conditions of probation?

    If ANYTHING is violable, then VIOLATE them.