U.S. v. Duckett (CA9): Non-Violent Felon in Possession 2A Appeal Fails

[wildhawker]

However, some language from Judge Ikuda's concurring opinion gives reason for some optimism. I expect we see one of these cases granted in the next few SCOTUS cycles.

Hat tip to Eugene Volokh at VC.

http://volokh.com/2010/12/27/second-amendment-rights-for-non-violent-felons/

Skoien, 614 F.3d at 650 (Sykes, J., dissenting).

[IGOTDIRT4U]

It's pretty obvious that this will be litigated for several more years. But, and I have put a lot of thought into it over the past months since McDonald, there are other such limitations put on ex-felons.

Sex crimes felons get monitering, are restricted from free-association. Fire bugs, who have committed non-violent crimes get restrictions. There are a whole host of non-violent felons who have had at least one of their BOR rights curtailed.

[cmth]

The entire concept of class distinctions between "free" people and which rights and privileges they do and do not enjoy is repugnant. If you're such a bad person that you cannot be trusted with certain rights and privileges, then why are you walking among the rest of us in the first place? Keep the really bad ones locked up, and let everyone else be free.

The way it is now, a felon is never truly free of their imprisonment, even though they may be let out of the jail. If prisons are meant to keep the bad people away from the good, then they should either be kept there, or have their full freedom restored to them on their release. And if prisons are meant to rehabilitate the wicked, then why are they still being punished after their debt has been paid, and their illness has been cured? It doesn't make any sense by any rational system of morality and justice.

[Window_Seat]

I don't like it, but what can we expect from a district court, considering how Peruta & Ezell has gone? This language does give me some (just some) optimism, and I won't have much more until Federal Appeals courts & SCOTUS begin to examine these excuse for taking rights away regulations with nothing less than strict scrutiny.

As far as felons having other BoRs being curtailed, I believe (I could be wrong) parolees cannot have a cell phone, and of course, they lose their 4th.

The entire concept of class distinctions between "free" people and which rights and privileges they do and do not enjoy is repugnant. If you're such a bad person that you cannot be trusted with certain rights and privileges, then why are you walking among the rest of us in the first place? Keep the really bad ones locked up, and let everyone else be free.

The way it is now, a felon is never truly free of their imprisonment, even though they may be let out of the jail. If prisons are meant to keep the bad people away from the good, then they should either be kept there, or have their full freedom restored to them on their release. And if prisons are meant to rehabilitate the wicked, then why are they still being punished after their debt has been paid, and their illness has been cured? It doesn't make any sense by any rational system of morality and justice.

The way the Government will try to justify all of the arbitrary extensions of penalties with the restrictions they impose will be "This is part of the punishment for committing the crime".

Erik.

[wash]

The entire concept of class distinctions between "free" people and which rights and privileges they do and do not enjoy is repugnant. If you're such a bad person that you cannot be trusted with certain rights and privileges, then why are you walking among the rest of us in the first place? Keep the really bad ones locked up, and let everyone else be free.

The way it is now, a felon is never truly free of their imprisonment, even though they may be let out of the jail. If prisons are meant to keep the bad people away from the good, then they should either be kept there, or have their full freedom restored to them on their release. And if prisons are meant to rehabilitate the wicked, then why are they still being punished after their debt has been paid, and their illness has been cured? It doesn't make any sense by any rational system of morality and justice.

A noble sentiment but quite unrealistic, our jails are not big enough and they are pretty much criminal factories any way...

I would let out non-violent drug offenders so that we can keep the violent felons locked up longer. Couple that with an end to drug prohibitions and we might actually have a chance at deterring violent crime.

[Window_Seat]

Rational basis review, therefore, remains appropriate because, as the Vongxay court observed, "the right established by Heller does not apply to felons...." 594 F.3d at 1119.

So if this court would have used intermediate or strict scrutiny, would this have gone much different?

Erik.

[cmth]

I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I would bet that a significant majority of inmates in the various prison systems of this county are only guilty of malum prohibitum crimes, and of those who are guilty of crimes malum in se, many are probably not bad enough people that they deserve to be locked up or punished for the rest of their lives. If that all were true, then we would probably not need nearly as many prisons as we have now in order to protect society from the criminal class.

[wildhawker]

M1A, I'm glad you are comfortable in your oversimplifications and contempt for the fundamental rights of human beings. I find it equally 'repugnant'.

[Fjold]

As long as they give life sentences then any other life long restrictions appear justifiable.

[Seesm]

I know a guy and he came home years ago and his lady was having a friend over at her "sushi" bar... :P This was his girl of a few years and nobody should have been eating at her sushi bar but him..
Anyway he (my buddy) had just got off work and had all his carpenter tools including a larger sized level... He swung the level at the guy and broke the guys arm BAD... When the cops came his shallow dirtball sushi feeding now ex GF said he was going to kill her "friend" and he was arrested and booked and spent a few months in jail.

He is not a violent person but IS a now because of this a felon... Now 10 or more years later he is a normal Dad with 3 kids and he can't get a fireamr to enjoy shooting sports or hunting with his kids.

I think its silly as I have known him since about the time he got in trouble... clean record other than that.
If he was dangerous I get it but if he is dangerous and we know this why is he walking around with us as a another above me sad?

This was just a 1 time not all that big of a deal... The "other" guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time eating at the wrong place...

Talk it out...

[Paul S]

I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I would bet that a significant majority of inmates in the various prison systems of this county are only guilty of malum prohibitum crimes, and of those who are guilty of crimes malum in se, many are probably not bad enough people that they deserve to be locked up or punished for the rest of their lives. If that all were true, then we would probably not need nearly as many prisons as we have now in order to protect society from the criminal class.

I am a retired correctional officer. I worked behind the wall for 20 some odd years. I do not share your view. Had you walked in my shoes I doubt you'd have the views you have expressed. Then again ........

[NightOwl]

Is there a good case along these lines in the works, designed to make a run up to SCOTUS, prior to a not-so-good case making it there?

[Pred@tor]

Really if one cannot be trusted with a firearm they should be locked up or dead from swift justice from someone who can be trusted with a gun caught in the act of using a firearm to kill an unarmed innocent person. This class system crud is bull and to say a non violent felon can't protect his life nor liberty is very wrong.

[wildhawker]

Your argument here is that the right of self defense should perish for reasons unrelated to visiting unjustifiable violence upon another. This, while the state continues to grow the list of actions which would preclude your right to self defense.

This is a good idea to you?

Yes, very comfortable thank you. Its not rocket science, simply think about the consequences of ones actions before hand.

Such as: what if I get caught with this joint without my med card; if I pummel this a-hole driver will I get busted; getting caught for sneaking out without paying for (insert).

Its basic golden rule stuff, or has that also been forgotten and is now too PC>

If someone actually and knowingly did the crime, F'em.

[nick]

Isn't manufacturing, selling, or importing a high capacity mag a felony? Just to give one example.