Gun Possession by Non-Violent Felon is Not a Problem

Quote of the Day

Duarte is an American citizen, and thus one of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. The Second Amendment’s plain text and historically understood meaning therefore presumptively guarantee his individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense. The Government failed to rebut that presumption by demonstrating that permanently depriving Duarte of this fundamental right is otherwise consistent with our Nation’s history. We therefore hold that § 922(g)(1) violates Duarte’s Second Amendment rights and is unconstitutional as applied to him.


May 9, 2024

EMPHASIS in the original.

Duarte had been previous convicted of five non-violent felonies and was then caught with a gun.The ninth circuit court of appeals just found his gun possession was protected by the Second Amendment. As this was in a car driving down the street this would imply one does not need a license to carry either.

I expect the prosecution will try to get an en banc hearing to overrule this ruling by just three judges.


9 thoughts on “Gun Possession by Non-Violent Felon is Not a Problem

  1. I should think that, further, not providing a administrative procedure for nonviolent felons to restore their rights short of getting caught, prosecuted, and appealed ad nauseum, would be a violation of their civil rights.

    The Ninth circuit panel has said nonviolent felons (presumably having done their time and made their restitution) have their rights under the Second Amendment. Thus, they should not be harassed, inconvenienced, or delayed in exercising those rights. Whatever background check systems out there, NICS and state-run, should be cleared of his disqualification, and every one that fails to do so within, say, 30 days of being informed, is violating his civil rights.

    Similarly, we who have never been disqualified should not be experiencing such harassment either.

  2. “The Second Amendment’s plain text and historically understood meaning therefore presumptively guarantee his individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense.”
    (Or any other reason he might decide not to discuss.)
    Ya, “plain text”?????, so why do so many of your fellow judges not get it?
    Why are a whole slew of states passing laws everyone knows are in violation of the “plain text”. And then judges backing them up?
    We need a lot more of these plain text type decisions. But more so we need to enforce a penalty for violating it.
    Great big f–king penalties. People have been murdered over this willful ignorance.
    One cannot claim to be upholding the law and be party to such lawless f–kery. Period.

    • Because so many judges will see your “Plain language of the law”, and raise you their “Plain Discretionary Power as a Judge, also under the law.”

      • And straight from Cornell law we have this;
        Judicial discretion.
        “Judicial discretion refers to a judge’s power to make a decision based on their individualized evaluation, guided by the principles of law. Judicial discretion gives courts immense power which is exercised when legislature allows for it.”
        You see the legislative body that wrote the 2A as granting discretion in the words “Shall not be infringed”?
        Said discretion being guided by the principles of that law?
        It’s not called discretion, it’s called usurpation. And it’s always been illegal.

  3. Non-violent or violent, they should have all their rights restored after serving out their full sentence. Done is done, and they shouldn’t be treated as second class citizens.
    If they are “too dangerous” to be allowed to be armed then they’re also “too dangerous” to drive a car, buy gasoline, have a lighter, or buy a hammer.
    If that’s the case, why were they released into the public?
    If not, why the prohibitions?
    Not as if prohibitions on them owning or possessing a firearm have stopped any of them from doing so if they desired, it just prevented them from buying from an FFL.

    • A taxation issue for the likes of the Leftist regime in power.

  4. It would appear that this whole “gun owned by a bad person” situation probably originated in the NAZI gun control system we copied back in 1968, that gave us the FFL/gun dealer/gun store infrastructure and laws that pollute the nation. Some ass’ole politician in a uniform liked the rules he found in Germany at the end of the war, and brought back a copy. Supposedly our ’68GCA is a near word for word copy.

    • That’s exactly what I read about thirty years ago, too. Senator Dodd. if memory serves, it was JPFO who pointed this all out.

      One of the problems I’ve seen over the years is that we Americans almost never (like, maybe once) ever knew exactly what Adolf was saying so passionately to the crowd, so instead of listening for such language, we are instead suspicious of any politician who speaks passionately about liberty, justice, and rule of law. All the national socialists here needed to do was ditch the snazzy uniforms, the giant images of the founding fathers, and most of the National Socialist language, and repeated the International Socialist language emphasizing fairness for all and how the rich were all conspiring against the poor, then wonder of wonders! the poor vote for a daily pot of stew and some tasteless amusement in exchange for their birthright as Americans.

Comments are closed.