Range vs Garland-En Banc "our Nation's THT" do not support disarming Range(plaintiff)

[okkleiner]

En Banc Third Circuit rules "that our Nation's history and tradition of firearm regulation" do not support disarming a plaintiff who was convicted of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in 1995.

https://twitter.com/FPCAction/status...18042810548224

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-b...constitutional

[AlmostHeaven]

Two Democratic-appointed judges ruled in favor of Second Amendment rights. This is the real surprise.

[CCWFacts]

I'm very surprised. The news article says this allows "non-violent" felons to possess guns. Many plea bargains result in violent individuals having convictions of non-violent crimes but that doesn't mean these are non-violent people.

This does not sound like a good ruling to me.

[AlmostHeaven]

You would rather the Third Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that a man who fraudulently obtained SNAP benefits, commonly known as food stamps, was rightfully deprived of the right to keep and bear arms for life?

The man had been convicted of no other offense before or since. The government should have no ability to strip Second Amendment rights from people not convicted of serious felonies. What is next, skip out on paying a few thousand dollars of taxes and become prohibited for life from possessing firearms?

[okkleiner]

Mark W Smith - The Four Boxes Diner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d1jOmSzGpA

[abinsinia]

Here's the case docket,

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...united-states/

[darkwater34]

Don't know but I think he'll just got air conditioning pending PI if the defendants chooses to seek relief through a PI and it gets granted.

[darkwater34]

You are probably one of those people that would oppress and cheer tryany than one that would oppose either.

[AlmostHeaven]

This 11-4 en banc ruling with multiple Democratic-appointed judges crossing the ideological aisle to affirm gun rights has spooked the living daylights out of the anti-gun left.

I am witnessing more panicked frenzy from gun control organizations now than ever before at any previous point in my life.

[darkwater34]

Gavin Newscum proposing to go as far as to change the Constitution by adding 28th Amendment he is h:s own st#$ show

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

This 11-4 en banc ruling with multiple Democratic-appointed judges crossing the ideological aisle to affirm gun rights has spooked the living daylights out of the anti-gun left.

I am witnessing more panicked frenzy from gun control organizations now than ever before at any previous point in my life.

Well it should spook the antis. This is the circuit supervising Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware (pous the Virgin Islands). Read the decision, concurring and dissenting opininons.

One little nugget speaks to the anti's claim to finding a historical analogue to groups of people. The majority didn't think much of the argument, but could well have said more.

That Founding-era governments
disarmed groups they distrusted like Loyalists, Native
Americans, Quakers, Catholics, and Blacks does nothing to
prove that Range is part of a similar group today. And any such
analogy would be ?far too broad[ ].

Slip at 19

[rational_behavior]

All welfare frauds (including those in DC, and their corporate masters) should be stripped of 2A rights, or none of them should be.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I'm very surprised. The news article says this allows "non-violent" felons to possess guns. Many plea bargains result in violent individuals having convictions of non-violent crimes but that doesn't mean these are non-violent people.

This does not sound like a good ruling to me.

Are you advocating for the repeal of the 5th amendment?

Would fit your ideology.

[sbo80]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

The news article says this allows "non-violent" felons to possess guns. Many plea bargains result in violent individuals having convictions of non-violent crimes but that doesn't mean these are non-violent people. This does not sound like a good ruling to me.

Except what you are describing is the old way. Prosecutors know that pleading down, if still a felony, is still prohibiting, so that goes into their decision. If this sticks, then they'll know that and a lot of people are not going to be offered the same plea deal as before. A lot.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I'm very surprised. The news article says this allows "non-violent" felons to possess guns. Many plea bargains result in violent individuals having convictions of non-violent crimes but that doesn't mean these are non-violent people.

This does not sound like a good ruling to me.

Then they should not offer to let them plea to petty stuff, only, if they are so concerned about it.

I'm not entirely opposed to prohibitions as a result of convictions, but the punishment should fit the crime of which the person was actually convicted. It can be justified if the person comments a serious offense that is violent, has the potential for or indicates a willingness to commit violence, aids others in the same, etc. and which involves acts that are malum in se (probably redundant, but I suppose there may be some exception somewhere). I also am not a fan of modern prohibited persons doctrine and question some of its constitutionality outside of 2A grounds, such as Federal prohibitions for non-Federal convictions or State prohibitions for crimes committed in other jurisdictions.

Felonies used to be exclusively very serious crimes, mostly violent, although not exclusively so, and also used to be far fewer in number. Most acts which are felonies today historically would only have been misdemeanors, infractions, or not offenses at all. Such broadening requires less blanket approaches, IMO. Ideally we'd go back to limiting what we consider to be felonies and maybe go back to some being misdemeanors that are more seriously punished.

IMO, to be prohibited you should have to commit an act of the type mentioned above (either civil or martial), or be adjudicated mentally incompetent/defective/insane, by a competent court in the jurisdiction in which you are being prohibited, ideally with that aspect of the sentence (in criminal cases) being waivable on an individual basis if the facts of the case justify it. I could also see it for aliens not part of the community where there is sufficient cause for doing so (such as illegals, aliens who are citizens of a hostile country, etc.), but there should be some way for non-resident or temporary resident aliens to keep and bear arms if there is no threat, danger, or other reason to restrict them. Beyond that I can't justify any kind of prohibition on the keeping and bearing of arms by any adult or any minor otherwise permitted to keep and bear arms under the law, where applicable.

Certainly, something like the act in question in this case does not fit the criteria.

[Paladin]

From case docket:

Jul 31, 2023

MANDATE ISSUED. (CND) [Entered: 07/31/2023 06:45 AM]

So, does this mean Garland will not seek cert?

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Paladin

From case docket:


So, does this mean Garland will not seek cert?

I guess they greatly prefer this not being merged with Rahimi. Which is bad news for us.

Food stamp violation would have been a MUCH better national precedent.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

I guess they greatly prefer this not being merged with Rahimi. Which is bad news for us.

Food stamp violation would have been a MUCH better national precedent.

The Supreme Court should have at least waited into the next term to grant certiorari to Rahimi. Bad facts make bad law, and I am almost certain that the government will win the case.

[darkwater34]

No matter what happens in Rhami, they are going to still have to deal with Range.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by darkwater34

No matter what happens in Rhami, they are going to still have to deal with Range.

I don't see why they can't do both without having to wait. They can strike 922(g)(8) with the reasoning that "a single judge issuing an order does not constitute proper due process to restrict constitutional rights". After that's done, lower courts must apply the test to Range just like Bruen's THT is being used to gut laws outside the scope of Bruen.

Maybe I'm wearing rose-colored glasses, but I can't see SCOTUS knee-capping due process to a single judge's whim.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by tenemae

I don't see why they can't do both without having to wait. They can strike 922(g)(8) with the reasoning that "a single judge issuing an order does not constitute proper due process to restrict constitutional rights". After that's done, lower courts must apply the test to Range just like Bruen's THT is being used to gut laws outside the scope of Bruen.

Maybe I'm wearing rose-colored glasses, but I can't see SCOTUS knee-capping due process to a single judge's whim.

Ultimately, the liberals only need to pull two conservative votes to win, and Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and to a lesser degree, Amy Coney Barrett, harbor sensitivity to public opinion.

[darkwater34]

Amy Cohen Barrett ruled in a similar case for the plaintiffs just before being appointed by Trump to the SCOTUS. So I really don't think she really cares about what the public thinks she is not even concerned about what the public thinks she is more concerned about the constitutionally aspects of the law. Not like V.P. HARRIS she is very consciousness about public opinion.