PDA

View Full Version : Misdemeanor Lifetime Ban Upheld; 2nd Amendment Intermediate Scrutiny


anthonyca
07-05-2011, 6:33 PM
possess firearms in the home,"
While we do not attempt to discern the "core" SecondAmendment right vindicated in Heller, we note that Heller statedthat the Second Amendment "elevates above all other interests theright of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defenseof hearth and home." 554 U.S. at 635. We would question whetherappellants, who manifestly are not "law-abiding, responsiblecitizens," fall within this zone of interest.


Close whereas the government urges that we adopt intermediate scrutiny (while asserting that the law would survive more stringent review). We think it sufficient to conclude, as did the Seventh Circuit, that a categorical ban on gun ownership by a class of individuals must be supported by some form of "strong showing," necessitating a substantial relationship between the restriction and an important governmental objective. Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641.

B. Constitutionality of § 922(g)(9)

Two very bad plaintiffs.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-1810P.01A

Librarian
07-05-2011, 6:41 PM
US V Booker and US v Wyman

aklover_91
07-05-2011, 6:48 PM
Well ****.

anthonyca
07-05-2011, 6:55 PM
I started another thread here about a case litigated by Don Kilmer. I hope someone smart like him gets some good clients and makes it to SCOTUS before these terrible cases.

Lex Arma
07-05-2011, 7:16 PM
possess firearms in the home,"
While we do not attempt to discern the "core" SecondAmendment right vindicated in Heller, we note that Heller statedthat the Second Amendment "elevates above all other interests theright of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defenseof hearth and home." 554 U.S. at 635. We would question whetherappellants, who manifestly are not "law-abiding, responsiblecitizens," fall within this zone of interest.


Close whereas the government urges that we adopt intermediate scrutiny (while asserting that the law would survive more stringent review). We think it sufficient to conclude, as did the Seventh Circuit, that a categorical ban on gun ownership by a class of individuals must be supported by some form of "strong showing," necessitating a substantial relationship between the restriction and an important governmental objective. Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641.

B. Constitutionality of § 922(g)(9)

Two very bad plaintiffs.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-1810P.01A

I think you are overstating the holding here. The court upheld restrictions on Second Amendment rights for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Restoration of those rights and whether lifetime ban is appropriate does not appear to have been addressed By the court. Nor were any facts stated that either defendant had tried restore their rights under state law. The real problem with the opinion is citation to that hack Kellerman.

anthonyca
07-05-2011, 7:23 PM
I think you are overstating the holding here. The court upheld restrictions on Second Amendment rights for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Restoration of those rights and whether lifetime ban is appropriate does not appear to have been addressed By the court. Nor were any facts stated that either defendant had tried restore their rights under state law. The real problem with the opinion is citation to that hack Kellerman.

Thank you for the clarification. I believe your Enos approach is brilliant and by far the best approach yet for this issue. Many of us are checking every day for an update.

choprzrul
07-05-2011, 9:46 PM
possess firearms in the home,"
While we do not attempt to discern the "core" SecondAmendment right vindicated in Heller, we note that Heller statedthat the Second Amendment "elevates above all other interests theright of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defenseof hearth and home." 554 U.S. at 635. We would question whether appellants, who manifestly are not "law-abiding, responsible citizens," fall within this zone of interest.


Close whereas the government urges that we adopt intermediate scrutiny (while asserting that the law would survive more stringent review). We think it sufficient to conclude, as did the Seventh Circuit, that a categorical ban on gun ownership by a class of individuals must be supported by some form of "strong showing," necessitating a substantial relationship between the restriction and an important governmental objective. Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641.

B. Constitutionality of § 922(g)(9)

Two very bad plaintiffs.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-1810P.01A

So, if "...not law abiding citizens..." get intermediate scrutiny, then surely the rest of us law abiding citizens should be able to expect strict scrutiny???

or am i just dreaming....

.

anthonyca
07-05-2011, 9:55 PM
So, if "...not law abiding citizens..." get intermediate scrutiny, then surely the rest of us law abiding citizens should be able to expect strict scrutiny???

or am i just dreaming....

.

I don't know. The prevalence of thinking that a misdemeanor at 18, with no other convictions into ones 40s, makes them not law abiding is troublesome.

desertdweller
07-05-2011, 10:32 PM
I don't know. The prevalence of thinking that a misdemeanor at 18, with no other convictions into ones 40s, makes them not law abiding is troublesome.

This is what I was thinking. I don't believe these two cases should have been combined. One was found out after an accident and the other while committing a crime. The term "law abiding" should apply to the moment, not some offense years prior that has nothing to do with the present issue.

Theseus
07-05-2011, 10:57 PM
But isn't that kind of their point?

They know they can't get away with ration basis, and don't want to use strict, so they find whatever reason they can that would sound semi-rational. "This person was not law-abiding" seems like a logical argument to many.

Even here the distinction behind a criminal and a law-abiding person is more a degree in how well you know the person or their crime. Some in other forums, and even here, believe I got exactly what I deserved and am a criminal. Others support it and believe that, no matter the law, I am a good person deserving a chance. People are funny when it comes to "criminals" and other labels.

BannedinBritain
07-06-2011, 12:24 AM
But isn't that kind of their point?

They know they can't get away with ration basis, and don't want to use strict, so they find whatever reason they can that would sound semi-rational. "This person was not law-abiding" seems like a logical argument to many.

Even here the distinction behind a criminal and a law-abiding person is more a degree in how well you know the person or their crime. Some in other forums, and even here, believe I got exactly what I deserved and am a criminal. Others support it and believe that, no matter the law, I am a good person deserving a chance. People are funny when it comes to "criminals" and other labels.

Using the reasoning they put forward one who breaks the speed limit, or jay-walks is no longer a "law-abiding" individual and is somehow now able to be stripped of a fundamental right...it really is astounding how far they will stretch to make it work...kinda reminds me of Nixon's secretary and the infamous erased tapes. :rolleyes:

scarville
07-06-2011, 5:41 AM
I don't know. The prevalence of thinking that a misdemeanor at 18, with no other convictions into ones 40s, makes them not law abiding is troublesome.
This decision is no surprise to me. It is endemic to the collectivist mindset to catagorize each individual as a member of one of more groups and then judge them based on those group memberships.

SunTzu
07-06-2011, 6:24 AM
I don't know. The prevalence of thinking that a misdemeanor at 18, with no other convictions into ones 40s, makes them not law abiding is troublesome.

All say it again. The courts are now skewing the definition of "Law Abiding Citizen" to fit their own agendas. This is one of those dangerous slippery slopes us conspiracy theorists fear. How far can they stretch it to consider you not a law abiding citizen?

Of note:
A felon when paroled must agree to be a Law Abiding Citizen
An illegal alien when granted amnesty must agree to be a Law Abiding Citizen

Both have violated the law, but now are considered by society to be law abiding citizens.

If the courts continue to use this imprecise line of thinking it wont be long until all of us are no longer considered "Law Abiding Citizens"

anthonyca
07-06-2011, 6:42 AM
All say it again. The courts are now skewing the definition of "Law Abiding Citizen" to fit their own agendas. This is one of those dangerous slippery slopes us conspiracy theorists fear. How far can they stretch it to consider you not a law abiding citizen?

Of note:
A felon when paroled must agree to be a Law Abiding Citizen
An illegal alien when granted amnesty must agree to be a Law Abiding Citizen

Both have violated the law, but now are considered by society to be law abiding citizens.

If the courts continue to use this imprecise line of thinking it wont be long until all of us are no longer considered "Law Abiding Citizens"

The will creep up on the ones who say, " I am not a ..........., so it doesn't bother me".

bulgron
07-06-2011, 7:07 AM
If the courts continue to use this imprecise line of thinking it wont be long until all of us are no longer considered "Law Abiding Citizens"

Considering the sheer number of laws on the books, it's impossible to find someone who hasn't broken at least one law within the last 24 hours (unless they're in a coma). Therefore, none of us are law abiding citizen. Therefore, none of us deserve gun rights.

It's pretty obvious where they want to go with this.

Look, the courts bent over backwards for 70 years (starting with Miller) to deprive us of our gun rights by interpreting them away. No one case actually "dead lettered" the 2A, but instead they did it step by step, incrementally, until almost nothing was left. And then the Supreme Court stepped in and upset the process. But I don't see why a couple of Supreme Court cases should stop the lower courts from trying to apply the same process all over again.

Judges don't like guns.

Judges don't like ordinary citizens with guns.

Therefore, judges are going to spend the next century (if they have to) looking for ways to make sure ordinary citizens don't have guns. Anyone who thinks we AREN'T going to have to battle the judiciary and the rest of the government for our gun rights until the ultimate fall of the Republic really hasn't been paying attention.

Anchors
07-06-2011, 7:09 AM
I'm just glad this wasn't in the Supreme Court.
I wish people would use more discretion in the cases they pursue. We are all excited about Heller/McDonald, but we need to milk it to its true potential.
I'm also not saying that CGF, Alan Gura, NRA, and SAF are the only people that can file proper lawsuits either. I'm just saying that we need to be careful...

The will creep up on the ones who say, " I am not a ..........., so it doesn't bother me".

To expand on that point, this quote is as relevant now as it has always been in our discussions here.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

First they came for the "criminals"...
Then they came for the CCW/OCers...
Then they came for the hunters...
Then they came for me...

scarville
07-06-2011, 7:21 AM
All say it again. The courts are now skewing the definition of "Law Abiding Citizen" to fit their own agendas. This is one of those dangerous slippery slopes us conspiracy theorists fear. How far can they stretch it to consider you not a law abiding citizen?
Give the Law time and you will get a lifetime ban for:

Too many traffic tickets.
Drinking.
Soliciting a prostitute.
Smoking tobacco.
Ridiculing stupid politicians our glorious leaders

:->

The sad part is that I suspect more than a few calgunners will turn quisling if offered a permit.

nicki
07-06-2011, 7:27 AM
This is a case that may hit the Supreme court wheter we like it or not.

It is the type of case that will effect not only the second amendment, but every other right as well. If a person can have a lifetime ban on a misdemeanor conviction on guns, how about other rights/privliges as well.

How about a lifetime ban on driving for first time conviction of driving with a blood alcohol level of .01

How about loss of voting rights. I think when this hits the Supreme Court it will be a case. That we may find some liberals coming over to a pro gun side because. Not to do so would establish precedence that will cause problems elsewhere.

Nicki

The Shadow
07-06-2011, 7:44 AM
The first question that needs to be asked is, why would you want to permanently deprive a person of their second amendment rights ? The obvious answer is because they are irresponsible with firearm ownership and pose a threat to public safety. So then you have to define in what way they are irresponsible and what makes that person a threat to public safety. We can cite instances where people who've never committed a crime, are irresponsible with a firearm and as a result have created a threat to public safety due to their irresponsible behavior with a firearm, and there are instances of people who have committed crimes, but pose no threat to public safety because they are not irresponsible when it comes to firearms. So what is the fairest way of determining who should and shouldn't be allowed to possess a firearm ?

So far, we prohibit people under 18 years old from buying a rifle or shotgun, but don't prohibit them from possessing a firearm, so long as they have parental permission, and to me, that seems fair. Parents should have a say in something like that. We also prohibit people under 21 years from buying a handgun, but I don't really consider that reasonable because, if a person is considered an adult at 18 years old, can make contractual agreements, and can vote, as well as buy a rifle or shotgun, what is it about being 18, that makes them less responsible with a handgun ? Even at 18 years old, it's not unlawful for a person to possess a handgun, it's just illegal for them to buy one. I personally think that's unconstitutional and should be challenged in court, especially when you consider that the military has a lot of 18 year olds in possession of LOADED handguns, and so far they have been pretty responsible.

So what individuals fairly fit the category of a class of people likely to be irresponsible and pose a threat to public safety ? The first most obvious answer is anyone that has committed a crime with a firearm. Personally, I don't care if the crime was rape, robbery, murder, ADW, or brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner without any justifiable reason, they've just proven themselves to be irresponsible with a firearm, and a threat to public safety. Notice that I didn't include gang members, but that's because I would replace gang members with a person who buys for and gives a firearm to a prohibited person. I personally don't like the term "Straw Purchase", nor do I like how they define it, because it includes purchasing a firearm for a person who is 18 years old and prohibited from buying a handgun merely because of their age. The next group of people I would prohibit are people who are substance abusers, to include alcoholics, but not someone who uses Marijuana. The reason being is, stimulant drugs like Meth, Cocaine, LSD, Opiates, and alcohol are mind altering drugs that have had a proven track record of making people more violent, so allowing them to own any firearm, while in a mind altering state is an accident or a violent incident waiting for a place to happen. Then there are those that have a history of committing violent misdemeanors. Personally, I think a person who has a documented history of getting into fights should be at least temporarily prohibited from possessing a firearm until they check themselves into an anger management class and show five straight years of not instigating violence. Lastly, there's the individual that isn't a criminal but has other factors in their lives that would make a reasonable and prudent person that has a knowledge of firearms believe that the person is irresponsible and a threat to public safety. Those people of course would be individuals that are mentally defective, have a history of attempted suicide, or have been involuntarily committed under 5150 WIC. That's pretty much it. Is there anything else that I missed ?

Anchors
07-06-2011, 8:18 AM
Why can a pot-head buy a gun, but not an alcoholic?
Did you not see the recent 10-year study that linked marijuana use to an increased risk of psychosis?

My point is that once you start saying "he's okay, she isn't, she is, he isn't" it makes it easier to restrict everyone.

So if someone gets into how many fights do they need classes and get a five year ban?
One fight? Three? Five?
What if someone else provokes and attacks them three times and they defend themselves but are still charged with assault?

These are the problems with bans.
Plus, any guy with a history of fighting that wants to get a gun for bad reasons will get one either way, as you've said.

Theseus
07-06-2011, 8:37 AM
I am drawing a blank, but I thought I saw a case where the ruling was that the government should have to demonstrate that they have just cause to remove gun-rights on a case-by-case basis.

I don't see that as a problem. Instead of creating laws that require loss, create a situation where the defense and prosecution get the jury to decide.

The Shadow
07-06-2011, 9:00 AM
Why can a pot-head buy a gun, but not an alcoholic?
Did you not see the recent 10-year study that linked marijuana use to an increased risk of psychosis?

I haven't seen that study, and if that's true, then I see no problem adding Marijuana to the list.

My point is that once you start saying "he's okay, she isn't, she is, he isn't" it makes it easier to restrict everyone.

But we are already saying that. Nobody thinks a gang banger should be allowed to have a firearm, and nobody thinks a felon should be allowed to own a firearm. As it stands, government law makers from the feds to the municipalities have been rather general in their definitions of who is prohibited. I'm simply putting a finer point on the issue.

So if someone gets into how many fights do they need classes and get a five year ban?
One fight? Three? Five?
What if someone else provokes and attacks them three times and they defend themselves but are still charged with assault?

Here's the deal, if it's mutual combat or the person is the aggressor, why would you want to allow a person like that to have a firearm ? If the person can articulate that they were merely defending themselves, I wouldn't consider them a prohibited person. Having said that, define provoking. Is the provocation with words, or was the provocation an outright attack. If it was merely words that provoked an individual to fight, do you think the person is mature enough or rational enough to carry a firearm ? Personally, I avoid places where I might be forced to fight, so why would an individual return to a place that has a reputation for fights, and where there is a good chance he might have to fight ?

These are the problems with bans.
Plus, any guy with a history of fighting that wants to get a gun for bad reasons will get one either way, as you've said.

And they can go to jail for merely having the gun. If it's stolen, or someone gave him, a prohibited person, the gun, he can go to jail for the possession of stolen property, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and most likely, carrying the firearm concealed. If a person gave them the gun, they go to jail as well. So there you go. To me, those are real criminal acts.

SunTzu
07-06-2011, 9:01 AM
I am drawing a blank, but I thought I saw a case where the ruling was that the government should have to demonstrate that they have just cause to remove gun-rights on a case-by-case basis.

I don't see that as a problem. Instead of creating laws that require loss, create a situation where the defense and prosecution get the jury to decide.

Skoien case the 7th circuit suggested the idea I believe. But even that case was a poorly written decision. I still laugh at their conclusion that California has a rights restoration process. Oh wait they do, just the feds refuse to recognize it.

bulgron
07-06-2011, 9:02 AM
I, for one, am disturbed that we have people freely walking around in society who we cannot trust with a gun.

The Shadow
07-06-2011, 9:08 AM
I, for one, am disturbed that we have people freely walking around in society who we cannot trust with a gun.

I'm only troubled by the ones that committed crimes violent crimes and have permabans. The others, not so much. I'm not concerned about the severely retarded or the person who was the subject of an involuntary 72 hour hold.

SunTzu
07-06-2011, 9:14 AM
I, for one, am disturbed that we have people freely walking around in society who we cannot trust with a gun.

I am more disturbed by the fact we have a government that thinks it cant trust you with a gun.

bohoki
07-06-2011, 9:21 AM
so they dont have any of the other "bill of rights" amendment rights either?

bulgron
07-06-2011, 9:31 AM
I'm only troubled by the ones that committed crimes violent crimes and have permabans. The others, not so much. I'm not concerned about the severely retarded or the person who was the subject of an involuntary 72 hour hold.

My point is that if someone is so dangerous/irresponsible that they cannot be trusted with a gun, then I don't think they should be walking free.

Violent people should be in prison. Period.

Alcoholics and other drug addicts should be treated so that they can become responsible members of society again.

Those who are mentally ill to the point of being a danger to themselves or others should placed in some kind of a care facility.

But what we shouldn't be doing is letting people roam free who we can't trust with a gun.

I mean, forget the guns for a moment. What we're saying is that there's all these dangerous/irresponsible people traveling around in multi-ton battering rams at a high rate of speed. And they're doing it at times and in places where we really need them to peacefully co-exist with other people in their battering rams. And this doesn't give reason cause for concern?

The Shadow
07-06-2011, 9:41 AM
My point is that if someone is so dangerous/irresponsible that they cannot be trusted with a gun, then I don't think they should be walking free.

Violent people should be in prison. Period.

Alcoholics and other drug addicts should be treated so that they can become responsible members of society again.

Those who are mentally ill to the point of being a danger to themselves or others should placed in some kind of a care facility.

But what we shouldn't be doing is letting people roam free who we can't trust with a gun.

I mean, forget the guns for a moment. What we're saying is that there's all these dangerous/irresponsible people traveling around in multi-ton battering rams at a high rate of speed. And they're doing it at times and in places where we really need them to peacefully co-exist with other people in their battering rams. And this doesn't give reason cause for concern?

Well the alcoholics and drug addicts are supposed to be prohibited from getting drivers licenses, and they won't give a license to a severely retarded person, so that leaves the borderline crazy people and violent felons that got their sentence plea bargained down to a fraction of the time they should have gotten. At this point, unless a murder involves multiple victims, even murderers don't get life sentences anymore.

bulgron
07-06-2011, 10:01 AM
Well the alcoholics and drug addicts are supposed to be prohibited from getting drivers licenses, and they won't give a license to a severely retarded person, so that leaves the borderline crazy people and violent felons that got their sentence plea bargained down to a fraction of the time they should have gotten. At this point, unless a murder involves multiple victims, even murderers don't get life sentences anymore.

Fine. If they're "rehabilitated" enough to let them out of prison, then let them own guns. If we can't trust them with guns, then don't let them out of prison.

To me, it's the ultimate litmus test.

The Shadow
07-06-2011, 10:41 AM
Fine. If they're "rehabilitated" enough to let them out of prison, then let them own guns. If we can't trust them with guns, then don't let them out of prison.

To me, it's the ultimate litmus test.

Well, neither will happen because giving a violent felon a gun is so irrational to even the most fervent second amendment supporters that politicians will hear it from both sides of the fence, and keeping them in jail for life will be viewed as unreasonable punishment. Our best hope is to show people why they should arm themselves, take the stigma out of thinking about self defense, and incrementally get people to actually step up and take control of their own security. Unfortunately, people like their rose colored glasses, and they refuse to take them off and see the world the way it really is. Until people finally get it, they will continue to think it will never happen to them.

wheels
07-06-2011, 12:14 PM
Fine. If they're "rehabilitated" enough to let them out of prison, then let them own guns. If we can't trust them with guns, then don't let them out of prison.

To me, it's the ultimate litmus test.

I don't favor a lifetime repeal of gun rights period. It's hard for me to rationalize a lifetime ban where someone will never have the ability to defend themselves.

I can't outline every situation but I think probation should be your gun ban time. After supervised and/or unsupervised probation you have the right own & right to apply to CCW.

Example 1 - you get a DUI, penalties & jail time maybe and say 2 years unsupervised probation. 2 year ban.

Example 2 - you steal a car, penalties & jail time 2 years supervised probation and maybe 3 years unsupervised probation. 5 year ban.

Example 3 - use a weapon to commit a robbery - 10 years jail, 5 years supervised probation, 10 years unsupervised probation. 10 + 15 year ban, and I think if you can stay off the LEO radar for 15 years while on probation you are probably not the same person that robbed the store and deserve to be able to defend yourself.

Just my 2 cents...

scarville
07-06-2011, 12:23 PM
so they dont have any of the other "bill of rights" amendment rights either?
Did you not hear? Guns are too dangerous to treat the Second Amendment like the rest of protections in the Bill of Rights. :rolleyes:

Sheesh! The right has not even been firmly re-established and already some people I hoped would know better are looking for way to limit it.

Anchors
07-07-2011, 3:16 AM
But we are already saying that. Nobody thinks a gang banger should be allowed to have a firearm, and nobody thinks a felon should be allowed to own a firearm. As it stands, government law makers from the feds to the municipalities have been rather general in their definitions of who is prohibited. I'm simply putting a finer point on the issue.
Who is "nobody"? Are you speaking for all of us now?
You don't think someone who committed felony perjury for instance when he was 18 should be barred form buying a gun to protect his wife and kids when he is 40 and hasn't even had a speeding ticket in twenty years? There are people like that. More than you think.
Can you articulate to me why he is dangerous and too irresponsible to own a firearm for a stupid mistake that he already paid for as a teenager. Already did his time, already paid his debt to society and was supposedly rehabilitated, yet he is a second-class citizen FOR LIFE.
Creating an underclass will never help rehabilitate someone and it has no place in a free society.
That doesn't mean I think someone who committed aggravated assault with a firearm a month ago should be able to have a gun, but the point is that he too will get it either way. NICS has only stopped 850,000 sales in 13 years, 95%+ of which I have heard were later approved after clarification.
It isn't doing a single damn thing.


Here's the deal, if it's mutual combat or the person is the aggressor, why would you want to allow a person like that to have a firearm ? If the person can articulate that they were merely defending themselves, I wouldn't consider them a prohibited person. Having said that, define provoking. Is the provocation with words, or was the provocation an outright attack. If it was merely words that provoked an individual to fight, do you think the person is mature enough or rational enough to carry a firearm ? Personally, I avoid places where I might be forced to fight, so why would an individual return to a place that has a reputation for fights, and where there is a good chance he might have to fight ?

Okay. We meet up in an alley right now and I call you an ahole for no reason. Tell you I don't like your shirt and punch you in the face. I keep hitting you and won't let you just walk away until you get tired of being attacked and decide to fight back. Then when the police show up we're both bloody and roughed up.
You claim self-defense, but it is my word against yours. You can't prove you didn't provoke me.
Looks like we both get assault charges and five year bans even though I started it.
Sound good to you?


And they can go to jail for merely having the gun. If it's stolen, or someone gave him, a prohibited person, the gun, he can go to jail for the possession of stolen property, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and most likely, carrying the firearm concealed. If a person gave them the gun, they go to jail as well. So there you go. To me, those are real criminal acts.

Yeah and you can go to jail for merely having a gun too right now in this state, even if everything is legal.
This is the basis of my point that more restriction doesn't reduce crime, it serves only to create a police state and erode the rights of the law-abiding over time.
I don't think that is such a crazy notion if you just read half the cases in this section...

The Shadow
07-07-2011, 5:14 AM
Who is "nobody"? Are you speaking for all of us now?

No, I'm speaking from experience. Everyone that I have ever heard talk about firearms and the laws that govern possession, has agreed that felons should not be allowed to own a firearm. You may want to go back and read post #19, because I would not be one of those people.

You don't think someone who committed felony perjury for instance when he was 18 should be barred form buying a gun to protect his wife and kids when he is 40 and hasn't even had a speeding ticket in twenty years? There are people like that. More than you think.
Can you articulate to me why he is dangerous and too irresponsible to own a firearm for a stupid mistake that he already paid for as a teenager. Already did his time, already paid his debt to society and was supposedly rehabilitated, yet he is a second-class citizen FOR LIFE.

Creating an underclass will never help rehabilitate someone and it has no place in a free society.
That doesn't mean I think someone who committed aggravated assault with a firearm a month ago should be able to have a gun, but the point is that he too will get it either way. NICS has only stopped 850,000 sales in 13 years, 95%+ of which I have heard were later approved after clarification.
It isn't doing a single damn thing.

Go back and reread post #19, and then get back to me.

Okay. We meet up in an alley right now and I call you an ahole for no reason. Tell you I don't like your shirt and punch you in the face. I keep hitting you and won't let you just walk away until you get tired of being attacked and decide to fight back. Then when the police show up we're both bloody and roughed up.
You claim self-defense, but it is my word against yours. You can't prove you didn't provoke me.
Looks like we both get assault charges and five year bans even though I started it.
Sound good to you?

Nope, because as soon as you start acting like an a-hole, I turn on my recorder that I always have handy, and walk away, if you stop me, I empty my can of pepper spray into your face, find a weapon and beat you unconscious and then call the cops. When they get there, I let them listen to the recording and tell them that I will burn a copy as evidence and I will have it in their office within 24 hours. You go to jail, and I go home and drink a beer. :D

Yeah and you can go to jail for merely having a gun too right now in this state, even if everything is legal.
This is the basis of my point that more restriction doesn't reduce crime, it serves only to create a police state and erode the rights of the law-abiding over time.
I don't think that is such a crazy notion if you just read half the cases in this section...

Not if you're legally allowed to possess it, and you're carrying in a lawful manner. I've only heard one incident so far where that would be the exception, and I believe the verdict in his case is being appealed. But in answer to your post, go back and read post #19 again.

aklover_91
07-07-2011, 6:19 AM
So we all have to carry tape recorders now? Hell, why not make it a law.

While we're at it we can put CCTV everywhere. :rolleyes:

SunTzu
07-07-2011, 6:35 AM
No offense Shadow but your living in fantasy land.
What is your attacker doing while you are fiddling with your voice recorder?
When you walk away do you think you arent going to be pursued?
Have you ever used pepper spray on someone at close range? It effects you too.
Your gonna grab a a weapon after all that?
Your best bet would be run like the wind. If he follows shoot the bastard

anthonyca
07-07-2011, 6:43 AM
No, I'm speaking from experience. Everyone that I have ever heard talk about firearms and the laws that govern possession, has agreed that felons should not be allowed to own a firearm. You may want to go back and read post #19, because I would not be one of those people.



Go back and reread post #19, and then get back to me.



Nope, because as soon as you start acting like an a-hole, I turn on my recorder that I always have handy, and walk away, if you stop me, I empty my can of pepper spray into your face, find a weapon and beat you unconscious and then call the cops. When they get there, I let them listen to the recording and tell them that I will burn a copy as evidence and I will have it in their office within 24 hours. You go to jail, and I go home and drink a beer. :D



Not if you're legally allowed to possess it, and you're carrying in a lawful manner. I've only heard one incident so far where that would be the exception, and I believe the verdict in his case is being appealed. But in answer to your post, go back and read post #19 again.

You would have a very high chance of being convicted of multiple felonies for, finding a weapon and beating someone who is already incapacitated by pepper spray. The audio tape of the break in his attack while you find a weapon would seal your fate.

I bet you would even talk to the police and tell them what happened. Even if the police don't want to charge you the DA probably would.

I know a guy who got into an argument and was jumped by three guys. He grabbed onto one and hurt him pretty bad as he was being beat by the other two. The campus cops arrested everyone. Guess who also was charged. Like it or not, you can't just beat the crap out of someone just because they deserve it. Now, if he got in a swift kick and one of the aggressors died, he has a very good chance of a self-defense claim. By beating the crap out of the one guy after he was "no longer a threat" he lost that claim.

Besides, this thread is about misdemeanors, which California law states are, " the least touching". You have a disagreement with your wife, ex-wife, adult child etc., and you want to get their attention so you tap them on the shoulder, very lightly, you just committed DV and would even tell the cops exactly what happened. Say said person or anyone else called the cops, your going to jail. If you take it to trial the jury would convict if the fallow California law and jury instructions. ( I have posted both in the past and I bet I will have to again) Bam, federally banned for life from ever touching a gun or ammo.

scarville
07-07-2011, 7:52 AM
Besides, this thread is about misdemeanors, which California law states are, " the least touching". You have a disagreement with your wife, ex-wife, adult child etc., and you want to get their attention so you tap them on the shoulder, very lightly, you just committed DV and would even tell the cops exactly what happened. Say said person or anyone else called the cops, your going to jail. If you take it to trial the jury would convict if the fallow California law and jury instructions. ( I have posted both in the past and I bet I will have to again) Bam, federally banned for life from ever touching a gun or ammo.
I'll wager some people see the restoration of rights for misdeamenors as hurtling down a slippery slope towards restoring rights for felons. Doesn't the thought of a vicious felon like Martha Stewart (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/5/153411.shtml) being able to own a gun scare the hell out you?

The Shadow
07-07-2011, 8:33 AM
So we all have to carry tape recorders now? Hell, why not make it a law.

While we're at it we can put CCTV everywhere. :rolleyes:

Read the threads of people carrying recording devices when encountering police, then get back to me.

No offense Shadow but your living in fantasy land.
What is your attacker doing while you are fiddling with your voice recorder?
When you walk away do you think you arent going to be pursued?
Have you ever used pepper spray on someone at close range? It effects you too.
Your gonna grab a a weapon after all that?
Your best bet would be run like the wind. If he follows shoot the bastard

Not really, if he's just being mouthy, that would be a clue that his loud mouth might just be a prelude to attack. Having dealt with enough A-holes in the past, I've seen the pattern more than once. Yeah, I've had some experience with pepper spray, even on windy days, you can use it and not be effected, so long as you're not down wind.

You would have a very high chance of being convicted of multiple felonies for, finding a weapon and beating someone who is already incapacitated by pepper spray. The audio tape of the break in his attack while you find a weapon would seal your fate.

I bet you would even talk to the police and tell them what happened. Even if the police don't want to charge you the DA probably would.

I know a guy who got into an argument and was jumped by three guys. He grabbed onto one and hurt him pretty bad as he was being beat by the other two. The campus cops arrested everyone. Guess who also was charged. Like it or not, you can't just beat the crap out of someone just because they deserve it. Now, if he got in a swift kick and one of the aggressors died, he has a very good chance of a self-defense claim. By beating the crap out of the one guy after he was "no longer a threat" he lost that claim.

Besides, this thread is about misdemeanors, which California law states are, " the least touching". You have a disagreement with your wife, ex-wife, adult child etc., and you want to get their attention so you tap them on the shoulder, very lightly, you just committed DV and would even tell the cops exactly what happened. Say said person or anyone else called the cops, your going to jail. If you take it to trial the jury would convict if the fallow California law and jury instructions. ( I have posted both in the past and I bet I will have to again) Bam, federally banned for life from ever touching a gun or ammo.

Not if you can articulate that the individual pressed his attack even after being pepper sprayed. And that's what I was getting at. Admittedly, I thought about writing that, but failed to do so. I spend a lot of time editing my posts because I do that. Oh well.

shocknm
07-07-2011, 8:35 AM
Martha Stewart's high capicity knife blocks are what really scare me. I mean, who needs a knife block that can hold 30 knives? No one needs more than a 10 holder. Except for LEOs of course.

Anchors
07-08-2011, 1:28 AM
No, I'm speaking from experience. Everyone that I have ever heard talk about firearms and the laws that govern possession, has agreed that felons should not be allowed to own a firearm. You may want to go back and read post #19, because I would not be one of those people.
Go back and reread post #19, and then get back to me.
Nope, because as soon as you start acting like an a-hole, I turn on my recorder that I always have handy, and walk away, if you stop me, I empty my can of pepper spray into your face, find a weapon and beat you unconscious and then call the cops. When they get there, I let them listen to the recording and tell them that I will burn a copy as evidence and I will have it in their office within 24 hours. You go to jail, and I go home and drink a beer. :D
Not if you're legally allowed to possess it, and you're carrying in a lawful manner. I've only heard one incident so far where that would be the exception, and I believe the verdict in his case is being appealed. But in answer to your post, go back and read post #19 again.

But you say people who commit crimes with guns/violent crimes should be banned for life.
Again, same situation.
Beat somebody up (battery can be a felony) or get popped for felony CCW without a license when you're 18 and now you are 40, wife, kids, good job, clean record for 20 years straight. You still can't own a gun? Why?
Isn't your debt paid once you finish prison/parole? It is according to the theory of rehabilitation.
Either those crimes are so bad that they carry 20 year sentences or you should get your rights back after you do your time.
It can't be both ways. You can't create a permanent underclass. There is a reason people go back to crime over and over again even after they've been to prison and know how much it sucks (granted most of them are just scumbags anyway, but some people do get "caught up" in the system because of its structure).

And if you think there is only one case of a person here being arrested for a gun legally owned, carried, and transported...you haven't been paying attention. Lol.
Often even when they "get off" they plead to a lesser charge even though they are innocent or they "get off", but they are still out thousands in legal fees and have spent time in jail.

You would have a very high chance of being convicted of multiple felonies for, finding a weapon and beating someone who is already incapacitated by pepper spray. The audio tape of the break in his attack while you find a weapon would seal your fate.

I bet you would even talk to the police and tell them what happened. Even if the police don't want to charge you the DA probably would.

I know a guy who got into an argument and was jumped by three guys. He grabbed onto one and hurt him pretty bad as he was being beat by the other two. The campus cops arrested everyone. Guess who also was charged. Like it or not, you can't just beat the crap out of someone just because they deserve it. Now, if he got in a swift kick and one of the aggressors died, he has a very good chance of a self-defense claim. By beating the crap out of the one guy after he was "no longer a threat" he lost that claim.

Besides, this thread is about misdemeanors, which California law states are, " the least touching". You have a disagreement with your wife, ex-wife, adult child etc., and you want to get their attention so you tap them on the shoulder, very lightly, you just committed DV and would even tell the cops exactly what happened. Say said person or anyone else called the cops, your going to jail. If you take it to trial the jury would convict if the fallow California law and jury instructions. ( I have posted both in the past and I bet I will have to again) Bam, federally banned for life from ever touching a gun or ammo.

Exactly.

Martha Stewart's high capicity knife blocks are what really scare me. I mean, who needs a knife block that can hold 30 knives? No one needs more than a 10 holder. Except for LEOs of course.

You mean assault blocks??

Wherryj
07-08-2011, 9:05 AM
I don't know. The prevalence of thinking that a misdemeanor at 18, with no other convictions into ones 40s, makes them not law abiding is troublesome.

It must not be the Bradys alone who have decided that gun owners are all just criminals who haven't been arrested yet.

Lex Arma
07-08-2011, 3:28 PM
Decision in Enos v Holder today. Mostly good.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.24.0.pdf

Scarecrow Repair
07-08-2011, 11:16 PM
Even if the Court were to find that a civil right was restored, Defendants argue that the statute is written in the plural and only contemplates the restorations of “rights” not the restoration of one right. Enos in turn asserts that the Second Amendment protects multiple rights, the right to keep and the right to bear, firearms.

Pardon my incredulity, but the government seems to be actually quibbling here over plural vs singular, in a serious legal document. Is this kind of pettiness typical of legal arguing? My only other experience is the other legal documents I have downloaded from gun cases, mostly found on CGN, and while there has been lots of quibbling over many fine legal terms, I don't recall any quibbling over singular vs plural.

If I were a judge, I'd tell the defendant's lawyer to submit a revised brief or be held in contempt for wasting everybody's time. This just seems beyond stupid. I don't think the Bradys, or Chicago, or DC have argued anything this petty.