It reasons, much historical analysis later, with the view that:[The Supreme Court's decision in] Bruen instructs us to assess all Second Amendment challenges through the dual lenses of text and history. If the Second Amendment's plain text protects the person, his arm, and his proposed course of conduct, it then becomes the Government's burden to prove that the challenged law is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
And, the majority concludes, this defendant's particular past convictions—for vandalism, drug possession, evading a peace officer, and being a felon in possession of a firearm—did not qualify.A more faithful application of Bruen requires the Government to proffer Founding-era felony analogues that are "distinctly similar" to Duarte's underlying offenses and would have been punishable either with execution, with life in prison, or permanent forfeiture of the offender's estate.
My first thought was, "The 9th Circus came up with this?"
Ninth Circuit Rules Some Felons Have Second Amendment Rights
Today's U.S. v. Duarte, written by Judge Carlos Bea and joined by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, concludes that the Second Amendment protects some felons (at least after the end of their criminal sentences). The majority begins with the principle that:
It reasons, much historical analysis later, with the view that:
And, the majority concludes, this defendant's particular past convictions—for vandalism, drug possession, evading a peace officer, and being a felon in possession of a firearm—did not qualify.
Ninth Circuit Rules Some Felons Have Second Amendment Rights
bearingarms.com
i don't think it will end in favor of the felon.
if it does, biden should walk on his charge
The Illinois case was an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. The 9th Circuit case is non-violent felons.Also @JAL
So as of now none violent felons can buy firearms?
Or just possess firearms?
Or it isn't that far along yet?
Is this a continuation of the same case IIRC from Illinois about a felon being allowed to own a firearm?
I normally don't chime in on divisive topics like this but...this affects the perception for all gun owners. Including us law-abiding owners.<SNIP>
Serious violent felons cannot possess firearms, but it looks like regular ol' felons may, just so long as they're not trying to carry handguns.
<SNIP>
To me, this is correct -- but also, violent people need to be kept locked up until such time as they're no longer violent.
<SNIP>
They just shouldn't be released into society with the root causes of their violence unaddressed.
I normally don't chime in on divisive topics like this but...this affects the perception for all gun owners. Including us law-abiding owners.
So I would ask: Does a leopard really change his spots?
(Me thinks not...then again I do not have much faith in people any more.)
Yes, very cynical way to look at it but...recidivism is real and the numbers show it. Especially for the violent ones.
(Having worked at USMS for several years, I studied recidivism in depth as it related to one of our "special programs.")Recidivism Among Federal Violent Offenders
(January 2019) This report is the fifth in a series of reports and provides a recidivism analysis of federal offenders who engaged in violent criminal activity.www.ussc.gov
IMHO: NO, convicted, violent felons (regardless of time having been served) should not be allowed to buy/possess firearms.
I also feel they should not be allowed to vote. If you "f'up" that badly, you must suffer the consequences.
I agree.I know I'm an outlier here on INGO when it comes to this topic, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone that's free to walk the streets with the rest of us is free to keep and bear arms as well.
To me, the correct solution is to arm yourself and prepare yourself in case bad people come your direction, not take away the rights of those we find scary.
But I'm a purist in this regard.
the correct solution