USA v Prince

[DadSmith]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Did anyone see this?

This court concludes that the [federal] government has not met its burden under Bruen to prove this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation with historical evidence of laws that authorized capital punishment and estate forfeiture for felonies.

Because this court determines that defendant is a member of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, and because neither type of historical regulation offered by the government satisfies its burden to show a history and tradition of “relevantly similar” analogues to § 922(g)(1)’s permanent, categorical firearm dispossession of all felons, the court is forced to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him under Bruen...

Does this apply to all felons now or just this guy?

 

[Twangbanger]

My guess is, just this guy, however, they've articulated the basis for a "test" which could be applied to other cases.

 

[Mgderf]

This could be huge!

 

[MrSmitty]

But, to me, the whole thing revolves around the fact that he had robbed someone WITH a gun, and found with a gun after the crime, whether he is of "the people", he still has not proven to be citizen who could be trusted to "keep and bear arms" IANAL, but seems cut and dried

 

[DadSmith]

But, to me, the whole thing revolves around the fact that he had robbed someone WITH a gun, and found with a gun after the crime, whether he is of "the people", he still has not proven to be citizen who could be trusted to "keep and bear arms" IANAL, but seems cut and dried

Before the ATF people could buy guns after serving time it was considered 2A right. That is they did their time they were then considered apart of society and reformed. However, back in those days there was over 200 crimes that you could be hung for. So violent criminals were usually hung. I'm talking back in the 1700's and 1800's.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Before the ATF people could buy guns after serving time it was considered 2A right. That is they did their time they were then considered apart of society and reformed. However, back in those days there was over 200 crimes that you could be hung for. So violent criminals were usually hung. I'm talking back in the 1700's and 1800's.

Felons were not prohibited until the 1968 GCA.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Felons were not prohibited until the 1968 GCA.

And the "war on drugs" created a whole lot more felons in 1971

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And the "war on drugs" created a whole lot more felons in 1971

This is true. I believe the language regarding illegal drugs was also added by the 68 GCA.

 

[Tripp11]

Felons were not prohibited until the 1968 GCA.

I thought the prohibited person language came in with the Brady Bill in the early 90's?

Either way, it's ridiculous that gun rights are stripped from a certain "class" of people because they have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more. There are plenty of non-violent felons in this country who have been stripped of their rights because of the Brady Bill.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I thought the prohibited person language came in with the Brady Bill in the early 90's?

Either way, it's ridiculous that gun rights are stripped from a certain "class" of people because they have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more. There are plenty of non-violent felons in this country who have been stripped of their rights because of the Brady Bill.

The Brady bill used the same language as the 68 GCA but applied it to the background check. It also added misd domestic violence convictions and I think a few other things.

 

[Tripp11]

The Brady bill used the same language as the 68 GCA but applied it to the background check. It also added misd domestic violence convictions and I think a few other things.

Thanks for the info, my brother.

 

[Emerson Dambiggins]

I think this was for Hunter's benefit.
Now the courts have a precedent to look at.

 

[2tonic]

I'm all for non-violent felons, who have paid their debt to society, regaining all their rights. But that has to be tempered against the cases of violent felons back on the street. As @DadSmith said above, previously most violent crimes were punishable by death, thus removing the chance of recidivism, to the benefit of society.
Nowadays, a large number of violent criminals are back in circulation after a 20~life sentence, and have not truly "mended their ways".
Perhaps some good behavior period should apply to these people, in order to prove their return to being productive citizens, before all their rights are restored.

 

[Lex Concord]

I'm all for non-violent felons, who have paid their debt to society, regaining all their rights. But that has to be tempered against the cases of violent felons back on the street. As @DadSmith said above, previously most violent crimes were punishable by death, thus removing the chance of recidivism, to the benefit of society.
Nowadays, a large number of violent criminals are back in circulation after a 20~life sentence, and have not truly "mended their ways".
Perhaps some good behavior period should apply to these people, in order to prove their return to being productive citizens, before all their rights are restored.

If one cannot be trusted on the street as a fully free person, they shouldn't be freed (or alive, depending upon the crime).

As punishment won't likely revert to the way it was, especially in some jurisdictions, a waiting period could be viable; though it seems likely it would have the same issues under Bruen.