Appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent crimes can own guns

[pastera]

@nstassel, and others, This decision in Third Circuit Court is not binding to all state courts, correct? This would have to be coming from Supreme Court I believe. I’m hearing conflicting opinions.

The opinion was "as applied" so it doesn't even apply to others within the circuit.

 

[drgrant]

They listed it as a felony maybe??

I know people out of MA with firearms and OUI’s.

I bet 95% of them are prebans. The law changed in may of 94 i think. Anyone convicted before that, nbd. The other 5% are probably CWOFs.

 

[drgrant]

We have some Level 3 Sex Offenders in my town who have repeatedly gone back to rape children again after serving time. Level 3 means likely to offend again.

Should Level 3 Sex offenders be able to own and carry guns for self defense?

What about psychotic mentally ill people like this:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/vermont-homeless-shelter-axe-attack/index.html

They are not in jail, after all.

Because the system doesn't deal with these people properly shouldn't f*** everyone else out of their rights. Fix those problems instead of making blanket shitty malum prohibitum laws that:

A. Accomplish nothing
B. Create a toxic environment of generalized contempt for the law and the justice system.

Multiple offense diddlers and rapists need to be dead or in prison. Making some coverall law as a half assed shield against them is shitlogic of the highest order.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Multiple offense diddlers and rapists need to be dead or in prison. Making some coverall law as a half assed shield against them is shitlogic of the highest order.

At the least make them smooth as a Ken Doll down there.

 

[nstassel]

I bet 95% of them are prebans. The law changed in may of 94 i think. Anyone convicted before that, nbd. The other 5% are probably CWOFs.

Or restored by flrb

 

[nstassel]

@nstassel, and others, This decision in Third Circuit Court is not binding to all state courts, correct? This would have to be coming from Supreme Court I believe. I’m hearing conflicting opinions.

It is not binding authority but it is persuasive.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I was more referring to a DUI conviction in MA which puts you over the potential 2 year sentence limit rendering you a Prohibited Person at the Federal level.

Basic stuff those not new to NES consider common knowledge. Under 18USC922(g) any crime with the aforementioned > 2 year sentence, other than crimes violating anti-trust of restraint of trade laws, meets the federal definition of felony for determining prohibited person stats.

And as a bonus, the BATFE has ruled that a MA restoration of gun rights by the MA Firearms Licensing Review Board is NOT a restoration of civil rights, therefore, still considers such persons prohibited from firearms ownership even after such relief.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Or restored by flrb

The FLRB is not authorized to restore rights lost due to any conviction involving firearms, rifles or shotguns. So the CWOF is one's best shot - even the governor's pardon application has a checkbox "with our without firearms rights restoration" so you cannot sneak you way back into the tent by claiming the issue is getting your good name back .... you'll probably get an al but firearms pardon if anything.

FLRB relief is completely ignored by the BATFE, and a FLRB restoration will NOT get you off the NICS prohibited person list. I have seen a denial letter for a subject on the NICS reject list for a MA first offense OUI.

The BATFE takes the pseudo-dicta in US v. Logan listing "vote, hold public office and serve on a jury" as a complete list of civil rights, not example, and claims FLRB is not restoring civil rights since you never lost those three.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Federal law already allows certain felons to not lose their firearms rights - and I'm not talking to those who got a "Relief from disabilities" before congress shut that down.

Felonies involving restraint of trade or monopolistic behavior do not trigger the federal prohibition (though they do trigger state level prohibition in some, but not all, states).

So there is already a line between "really bad felonies" and "those that do not render one unable to own firearms", so the question is not "should felons be allowed to own guns?" but rather "which felons should be allowed to own guns?". It can sometimes be more effective for litigation to argue where a line is drawn, rather than try to get a new line created.