search
top

Some Hope For Reform of Prohibited Persons

Eugene Volokh points to a case in the federal courts.  If I’m reading it right, judge rules that as applied to the defendant, that 18 USC 922(g) is constitutional, but suggests that the felon-in-possession statute is “strikingly large” in scope, and that the scope in some situations should be called into question under Heller.  I think this is a sensible approach, and I’m glad to see some judges taking it seriously.  There does need to be some limits to state power to remove this right. Otherwise, what is to prevent a state from arguing that, say, careless driving shows a serious lack of judgement, and anyone convicted of such an offense clearly does not have the judgement necessary to own a gun?  I would not argue, as some would, that any prohibition is unconstitutional, but not all crimes can be considered disabling for the purposes of exercising that right, and the courts owe the public well reasoned opinions as to why certain crimes should and should not be disabling.

7 Responses to “Some Hope For Reform of Prohibited Persons”

  1. Kristopher says:

    If the antis can ban people with misdemeanor records from exercising a basic human right, can we ban welfare recipients from voting?

  2. Wolfwood says:

    Can we ban people who use cell phones irresponsibly from voting?

    Please?

  3. Wolfwood says:

    Maybe from owning guns, too; I’m a little ambivalent on that one.

  4. Hank Archer says:

    Actually, the proposal that no one who regularly receives a check from the government could vote makes a lot of sense. Not just welfare recipients, but also those on unemployment, government employees, government contractors, etc.

    Let the producers make the decisions. PS — I’m a retired Fed LEO, now working for a school district.

  5. Brass says:

    Otherwise, what is to prevent a state from arguing that, say, careless driving shows a serious lack of judgement, and anyone convicted of such an offense clearly does not have the judgement necessary to own a gun?

    Here in CO they already do. I’m on probation for a non-violent traffic offense that has a punishment that doesn’t exceed one year in jail. However, while on probation, my second amendment rights have been taken from me for two years.

  6. Rwilson452 says:

    Way back when. Military people couldn’t vote. I think it changed during the Korean War. I am now retired. USNRET and Social Security. That is two government checks. I should not be allowed to vote?

  7. teqjack says:

    Most laws depriving criminals of gun rights do specify felony conviction, not misdemeanor. And the plaintiff here has a history of, and probablity of re-offending with, violence.

    Alas, “felony” covers quite a wide range. To catch and keep a lobster under two pounds in Maine waters is a felony: to then dock in New Hampshire crosses State lines, and it is then also a Federal felony.

top