Posts Tagged felons

Slate Begrudgingly Admits Felons Should Have Gun Rights

Like a growing number of public defenders, liberal judges like Freeman, Ambro, Greenaway, and Montgomery-Reeves may think that the Second Amendment can be repurposed as a weapon against over-policing and mass incarceration. If upheld by the Supreme Court, Range will certainly be a boon to the criminal defense bar, as well as a source of immense confusion for prosecutors. The majority’s standard is extraordinarily vague: It acknowledges that some people may be disarmed for committing a felony, but a person “like Range” could not. How can judges tell when someone falls on Range’s side of the line?

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Felons and Gun Rights

From Ammoland:

The number of crimes now considered to be “felonies” has slowly increased over the decades. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms, and it is not clear that this right is extinguished simply because someone has been convicted of a felony. The language of the Second Amendment does not exclude felons from its protection, and it is concerning that judges are interpreting it that way.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Felons Who Have Served Their Time Should Have Gun Rights Restored

From Cam And Company:

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Criminals Fear Armed Citizens, Not Police

From The Daily Bell:

In a research study sponsored by the United States Department of Justice, James Wright and Peter Rossi interviewed over 1,800 incarcerated felons, asking how they felt about civilians and gun ownership. Thirty-three percent of these criminals admitted to being scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by a gun-owning victim. Sixty-nine percent of them knew at least one other criminal who had similar experiences. Nearly 80 percent of felons also claimed that they intentionally avoid victims and homes that they believe may be armed.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Criminal Justice Reform For Gun Rights

From The Truth About Guns:

Many have argued that there’s no reason to deny convicted felons their guns rights once they’ve paid their debt to society. If they’re deemed safe enough to release from prison, the thinking goes, why can’t they exercise their Second Amendment rights as they would any other?
This seems particularly reasonable in the case of felons who were convicted of non-violent crimes. Now the Firearms Policy Coalition, along with the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation and others have filed a brief in a case against a man who was charged with possession of a firearm following a felony fraud conviction years earlier.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Criminals Don’t Buy Guns From Stores, Study Finds

From Guns.com:

When it came to retail sources such as gun shows, flea markets, firearm stores, and pawn shops, only about 10 percent said they were able to obtain their weapons from such outlets through purchases or trades. Of those, the majority reported that a background check was conducted as part of the sale, although in many cases they did not purchase it under their own name.
In all, only about 1 percent of prisoners who used a firearm during their crime had obtained it through a retail sale.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

CA Won’t Recognize Expunged Records For Gun Purchases

From Reason:

But not according to the state of California, where Linton and Stewart have long led law-abiding lives. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that their vacated felony convictions forever disqualify them from buying or possessing guns. Last week Linton and Stewart, joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three other gun rights groups, filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco, arguing that California’s policy violates the Second Amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

California law, like federal law, prohibits people with felony convictions from owning firearms. On its face, that provision does not apply to people like Linton and Stewart, since their felony records have been vacated and therefore no longer exist as far the courts of conviction are concerned. Yet the California DOJ has told them that the state does not recognize those legal facts.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments