Gun rights of convicted felons argued before Louisiana Supreme Court

[Ninety]

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/05/louisiana_supreme_court_consid_1.html

The Louisiana Supreme Court heard argument Tuesday in two more challenges to the state's laws restricting gun ownership, this time involving convicted felons who are barred from having firearms. The challenges stem from voters overwhelmingly approving a 2012 constitutional amendment that made gun ownership a "fundamental right," on the same level as freedom of speech.

The amendment requires that such laws be held to "strict scrutiny," the highest level of judicial review......


......Tuesday's arguments stem from rulings trial judges made in Jefferson and St. Tammany parishes in May 2013. The common theme among the arguments was whether the felon in possession of a firearm law, Revised Statute 14:95.1, is overly broad.

B. In this Code, "crime of violence" means an offense that has, as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, and that, by its very nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense or an offense that involves the possession or use of a dangerous weapon. The following enumerated offenses and attempts to commit any of them are included as "crimes of violence":

(1) Solicitation for murder

(2) First degree murder

(3) Second degree murder

(4) Manslaughter

(5) Aggravated battery

(6) Second degree battery

(7) Aggravated assault

(8) Mingling harmful substances

(9) Aggravated rape

(10) Forcible rape

(11) Simple rape

(12) Sexual battery

(13) Second degree sexual battery

(14) Intentional exposure to AIDS virus

(15) Aggravated kidnapping

(16) Second degree kidnapping

(17) Simple kidnapping

(18) Aggravated arson

(19) Aggravated criminal damage to property

(20) Aggravated burglary

(21) Armed robbery

(22) First degree robbery

(23) Simple robbery

(24) Purse snatching

(25) Extortion

(26) Assault by drive-by shooting

(27) Aggravated crime against nature

(28) Carjacking

(29) Illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities

(30) Terrorism

(31) Aggravated second degree battery

(32) Aggravated assault upon a peace officer with a firearm

(33) Aggravated assault with a firearm

(34) Armed robbery; use of firearm; additional penalty

(35) Second degree robbery

(36) Disarming of a peace officer

(37) Stalking

(38) Second degree cruelty to juveniles

(39) Aggravated flight from an officer

(40) Aggravated incest

(41) Battery of a police officer

(42) Trafficking of children for sexual purposes

(43) Human trafficking

(44) Home invasion

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Interesting.

I once opined that the effort to restore voting rights would play a part in this as well. Now we see if I was right.


The Raisuli

[Hanse Davion]

Not going to change much when the Federal system will still prohibit.

[fiddletown]

Not going to change much when the Federal system will still prohibit.

That might be an open question which will need to be addressed in federal court. As defined in 18 USC 921(a)(20), a conviction for the purposes of the prohibition under 18 USC 922(g)(1), emphasis added:

...shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

So is the Louisiana statute which lifts the state prohibition after 10 years a "restoration of civil rights"? I don't know, and I don't know if a court has addressed the question.

[banker1]

I would like to see a win for the felons here...if one has served his/her time and paid his/her due...all of his/her rights should be restored...voting, gun...whatever. If you're going to continue to punish him/her and make him/her pay, why let him/her out of jail. If he/she has no chance to become a productive citizen again, they just revert back to what put them in prison the first time...

[RKBA-SNBI]

^^ What he or she said.

[edwardm]

Just to further the discussion, I believe the 5th Circuit has addressed the question.

U.S. v. Dupaquier, 74 F.3d 615 is the cite, and I've yet to find anything overturning the holding.

A snippet of the holding:

Consistent with our analysis in Thomas, where, as here, a
state's constitution declares full rights of citizenship to be
restored upon a convicted felon's release from custody, we need not
look further to determine that the restoration satisfies section
921(a)(20). That the legislature has barred felons from serving on
juries is not inconsistent with that conclusion. The exercise of
the legislature's power to establish qualifications for jurors
cannot be read as qualifying the plain language of the state's
constitution restoring "essentially all" of a discharged felon's
civil rights.

Current law limits the offenses which seem to qualify for the existing 10 year 'rehabilitation' statute. How this case will change that analysis, I don't know. Personally, I think it survives a strict scrutiny analysis as it stands, though.

That might be an open question which will need to be addressed in federal court. As defined in 18 USC 921(a)(20), a conviction for the purposes of the prohibition under 18 USC 922(g)(1), emphasis added:
So is the Louisiana statute which lifts the state prohibition after 10 years a "restoration of civil rights"? I don't know, and I don't know if a court has addressed the question.

[RobertMW]

I would like to see a win for the felons here...if one has served his/her time and paid his/her due...all of his/her rights should be restored...voting, gun...whatever. If you're going to continue to punish him/her and make him/her pay, why let him/her out of jail. If he/she has no chance to become a productive citizen again, they just revert back to what put them in prison the first time...

Yup, if the government is willing to let them back into the population without supervision, they should be just as comfortable giving them back ALL their rights.

If they aren't? Then they are just playing with the lives of every other law abiding person, gambling on the odds between that person going back to a life of crime and possibly assaulting/killing someone, and that person deciding that what they had done earlier in life was a mistake, have embraced their pentinace, and changed their ways.

Granted, there is no way to know 100% either way, but if the odds are stacked one way or the other, it should be an easy decision where that person should be.

Edit: Also allow any adult citizen to carry, then the assault/murder problem will self regulate a bit don't you think?

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I would like to see a win for the felons here...if one has served his/her time and paid his/her due...all of his/her rights should be restored...voting, gun...whatever. If you're going to continue to punish him/her and make him/her pay, why let him/her out of jail. If he/she has no chance to become a productive citizen again, they just revert back to what put them in prison the first time...

Yup.

Yup, if the government is willing to let them back into the population without supervision, they should be just as comfortable giving them back ALL their rights.

If they aren't? Then they are just playing with the lives of every other law abiding person, gambling on the odds between that person going back to a life of crime and possibly assaulting/killing someone, and that person deciding that what they had done earlier in life was a mistake, have embraced their pentinace, and changed their ways.

Granted, there is no way to know 100% either way, but if the odds are stacked one way or the other, it should be an easy decision where that person should be.

Edit: Also allow any adult citizen to carry, then the assault/murder problem will self regulate a bit don't you think?

Yup.


The Raisuli

[Warrior King]

Forever is too long. Everyone deserves some type of road to redemption.

The truth is other than the psychopaths most men who are aggressive and violent are that way in their youth when their behavior is most influenced by too much male testosterone along with other social factors.

Once these violent offenders hit their mid to late 40's
they are like totally different people, much wiser and more in control of things like anger and aggression due to the first stages of andropause.

[ChrisC]

Once these violent offenders hit their mid to late 40's they are like totally different people, much wiser and more in control of things like anger and aggression due to the first stages of andropause.

Now that is funny! But keep believing it.