Illinois District Court Rules 922(g)(1) Unconstitutional

Chewy65 · #1 05-02-2018, 2:50 PM

A judge of the USDC for the Southern District of Illinois has ruled that 18 USC 922(g)(1)'s prohibition of firearms fro felons is unconstitutional as applied to a person convicted of a non violent felony. See Hatfield v. Sessions (not McCoy). Let's see what happens down the road. The case has some interesting verbage regarding what Heller meant.

wolfwood · #2 05-02-2018, 3:57 PM

I think this is the best part of the opinion.

The Government has fallen on their own sword by relying on these cases: at the time of the founding, English common-law felonies consisted of murder, rape, manslaughter, robbery, sodomy, larceny, arson, mayhem, and burglary. Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101, 108 n.6 (1943); Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law, § 2.1(b) (5th ed. 2010). So if the Founders intended to allow Congress to disarm unvirtuous felons, that intent would have necessarily been limited to individuals convicted of one of those nine felonies. Hatfield, however, violated a statutory felony that Congress created in 1948: making a false statement in breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. That offense is most similar to the common law offense of forgery, which first arose in 1727 as a misdemeanor—not a felony. Jerome, 318 U.S. at 109 n.7; LaFave, supra. 3 Critics of this approach may complain that we do not read constitutional rights this way—for example, the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches now applies to electronic devices that the Founders did not contemplate, and the First Amendment covers forms of communication that the Founders did not contemplate. But those scenarios are entirely different: they consider the expansion of constitutional rights that protect the people over time, whereas the Government here is [*14] attempting to shrink Second Amendment rights of the people.

That is some OG historical analysis right there

warbird · #3 05-02-2018, 3:58 PM

The second amendment if i remember right never bared felons or anyone. So shouldn't any restrictions even in the light of public safety be illegal unless a man/woman has their day in court and a judge finds that person to be prohibited individually from his second amendment rights based on his actions during and after the offense and he continues to create a clear and public danger by having weapons? but your district attorneys want a blanket restriction because they would have to take each individual into court wouldn't they?

DASchell · #4 05-02-2018, 3:59 PM

Nice Find & Read

wolfwood · #5 05-02-2018, 4:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warbird

The second amendment if i remember right never bared felons or anyone. So shouldn't any restrictions even in the light of public safety be illegal unless a man/woman has their day in court and a judge finds that person to be prohibited individually from his second amendment rights based on his actions during and after the offense and he continues to create a clear and public danger by having weapons? but your district attorneys want a blanket restriction because they would have to take each individual into court wouldn't they?

Well common law felons had no rights at all and were often put to death

big red · #6 05-02-2018, 4:56 PM

well death solved that problem but we do not have that option now do we? Now we have felons and still nothing in the second amendment that bars felons especially those that did not commit violent crimes.

homelessdude · #7 05-03-2018, 7:50 AM

Calif. has been expanding this for twenty years. It now includes several pages of misdemeanors for everything you can imagine. Maybe someday that ruling will help overturn some of the crap here.

PS. It's political commercial time; don't believe any of the stupid claims they make.