Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.
As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
Well, we got the Supreme Court ruling in our favor, now the courts may well be flooded with crap like this while the lawyers try to make a profit from the ruling.
So how far does the right to protect yourself in your home go?Surely it doesnt include giving convicted felons the right to bear arms does it?Do these idiots really have a chance of winning in court?
The last part addresses felons who have committed non violent offenses being allowed to own guns.Im not real well versed on the law but isnt there already a way they can do this legally?A friend of mine had a old conviction on his record for a non violent offense, after a certain number of years he was able to ask the governer for his rights back and can now legally own guns, Im not sure how it all worked and he doesnt talk about it much.
There was no lawyers, no court hearings, nothing of the sort involved.This should be interesting to watch as it progresses if nothing else
In PA you can petition the court to get your gun ownership rights back for non-violent offenses.
__________________
"There is nothing in the world like a persuasive speech to fuddle the mental apparatus and upset the convictions and debauch the emotions of an audience not practiced in the tricks and delusions of oratory." --American author and humorist Mark Twain (1835-1910)
People and children say all kinds of crap, that doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court majority opinion took pains, I have heard, to say their ruling does not forbid all regulation of gun ownership and even spoke directly to specific prohibitions that their ruling did not forbid. I think they may specifically have said nothing wrong with prohibiting convicted felons from owning guns. Those convicted felons found with firearms on their property -- I hope they don't mind spending additional time in the penitentiary, because I think that is where they are headed. Based on the facts described above, it doesn't sound lke those felons had received their gun ownership rights back from the governor or otherwise.
I hope they don't mind spending additional time in the penitentiary, because I think that is where they are headed.
Bingo.The SCOTUS addressed a very narrow area of gun ownership: DC would not allow law abiding citizens to register new hand guns for protection in the home.Theyspecifically stated thatthe prohibition on gun ownership by felonsdoes not violatethe 2nd Amendment.
No governor cantrump a federal law. There is a federal procedure by which a felon can theoretically have his/her right to own a gun restored. Catch: No money was ever appropriated andno felons right to own a gun was ever restored.Think about it for a moment:How is the convicted felon going to answer12. c of the ATF form 4473? If hewrites Yeshe gets no gun. If hewrites No he is in big trouble.
Too many folks expected too much from the SCOTUS.People were believing that the Supremes would overturn the gun control act of 1968 and thefederal machinegun ban.
BTW: The only folks I ever hear say that a convicted felon should be allowed to own a gun are conservative, law abiding gun owners on gun boards. Why is that?
BTW: The only folks I ever hear say that a convicted felon should be allowed to own a gun are conservative, law abiding gun owners on gun boards. Why is that?
The reason is that if a person is convicted of a felony and has served their time, they should have their rights reinstated. If they can't be trusted to have their rights reinstated, they can't be trusted to roam outside of a containment facility made of barbed wire and concrete either.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
The Heller decision left a ton of questions open. This is one of the reasons that anyone who cares, even remotely, about the continued existence of the 2nd Amendment would be a fool to vote for a Democrat.
As regards the specific case at issue here, the Supreme Court stated in the Heller case: "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill..."
Dunno why it should even be an issue for non-violent felons. As for violent felons, I keep an open mind.A guy putting afelony assault class buttwhipping on some guy who picked a fight isn't any more of a danger to society armed than some folks on this site with clean records.[:@]
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
I think the idea is that if you break serious laws -- i.e., committing a felony involves breaking a serious law -- you are deemed to be a dubious member of society. Aren't your voting rights rescinded if you are a convicted felon, or is that an Internet legend? Seems to me if you aren't trustworthy enough to be allowed to vote maybe you aren't trustworthy enough to be allowed to own firearms. But I'm not adovating one way or the other -- I don't have a settle opinion on this question. I will say I have less sympathy for a convicted felon denied their second amendment rights than for a citizen with a clean record who is denied their second amendment rights.
Its only a matter of time where you simply cannot function without breaking one sort of law or another- pretty much the easiest incremental way for a government to get a noose-like control over the population.
Under current law (thanks Lautenburg[:@]) you can be stripped of your right to own guns permanently if a neighbor overhears you having a heated argument with your spouse. The law was sold to the public as a way of keeping violent wife-beaters from accessing guns, but the framers of the law knew that it could be applied to almost anyone who has ever raised their voice above a nice calm 75 decibels in their own home.
I had (R.I.P.) a friend who had a felony drunk driving conviction. He served his time, got his life turned around and after about 10 years got his right to own firearms back after petitioning a judge. Unfortunately, he died in a car accident (ironically, not alcohol related) a month before what would have been his first deer season in 15 years.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Its about time the supreme court takes on cases like this.
Everyone should have the right to protect themselves/home/family.
2 points I'd like to make are:
1, the many felons who never committed a violent act, or used a weapon in their crime, can't own a firearm? Why should those felons be lumped into a larger group and all have the same restrictions. That's like saying you'll lose your driver's license for vandalism. The punishment should fit the crime.
2, once a person serves his sentence, his rights should be reinstated, under most circumstances, I'm not against weapon related/viloent felons being restricted from gun ownership, but those other felons are being lumped into a larger unrelated group.
Also, maybe a post conviction good time behavior restriction? If you were 20 when you committed your crime and are now 40, with no re-arrests, and if that was your 1 time only breaking the law, how long must someone pay for their crime?
The other side of gun ownership
