See other Activism Articles
Title: FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition) Supreme Court Brief: Non-Violent Felons Have Second Amendment Rights
Source:
Ammoland Shooting Sports News
URL Source: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/10/fp ... mendment-rights/#axzz61Q8ipezW
Published: Oct 4, 2019
Author: FPC
Post Date: 2019-10-04 17:00:27 by X-15
Ping List: *Shooters* Subscribe to *Shooters*
Keywords: None
Views: 1324
Comments: 10
WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important Supreme Court brief in the case of Medina v. Barr, a Second Amendment challenge helmed by Supreme Court and appellate attorney, Alan Gura. The brief is available online at FPCLegal.org. “The Supreme Court has promised a historical justification for bans on felons, and we believe that we have presented compelling evidence that the Court must have been referring to the tradition of disarming dangerous and violent people,” explained FPC Director of Research and brief author, Joseph Greenlee. “Since countless non-violent felons are being denied their rights every day—including many who have been law-abiding for several decades, like Mr. Medina—we are hopeful that the Court will accept the case and clarify its intent.” FPC was joined by amici organizations Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF), and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. Background Nearly three decades ago, in 1990, Mr. Medina made a false statement on a mortgage application. He was convicted of a felony, but has been fully rehabilitated, has led an impressive and successful life, and has demonstrated no propensity for violence whatever. Mr. Medina would now like to exercise his right to keep and bear arms, but the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said his non-violent felony committed in 1990 still shows that he cannot be trusted. To the contrary, his rehabilitation has been so clear, that the very mortgage company he had misled in 1990 has since extended him a $1,000,000 line of credit. After the D.C. Circuit rejected his request to declare the firearm prohibition on felons unconstitutional as it applies to him, Medina petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, and to ultimately restore his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has previously promised to provide a “historical justification” for the ban on felons. FPC filed a brief in support of Mr. Medina, showing that the historical justification for bans on felons is the tradition of disarming dangerous and violent persons. FPC’s brief traces the historical tradition of disarming dangerous persons from A.D. 602 through the latter half of the twentieth century. Both English and American tradition support firearm prohibitions on dangerous persons—namely, disaffected persons posing a threat to the government and persons with a proven proclivity for violence. But there is no tradition of banning peaceable citizens from owning firearms. In fact, ratifying proposals by Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire show that non-violent persons were never intended to be disarmed by the government. Moreover, compared to Mr. Medina, who falsified information on a mortgage application nearly 30 years ago, violent insurrectionists involved in Shays’ Rebellion had their gun rights restored after 3 years. Outside of discriminatory—and therefore unconstitutional—bans, non-violent people like Mr. Medina only first started being denied their Second Amendment rights in the 1960s. Thus, there is no “historical justification” for a ban on non-violent felons like Mr. Medina, and we believe, he should be entitled to his fundamental right of armed defense. Poster Comment: I lean towards the interpretation of the Second Amendment as it was in the 1790's: let every man not in jail be armed. The revolving door of justice and people not serving their complete prison sentences is a real problem as well as being a different topic.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
Many men that have been accused and even convicted of spousal abuse have had their gun rights taken. I might understand that if they had shot their old lady !
Ephesians 5:11King James Version (KJV) "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. " The best thing about old age is that it doesn't last forever.
It's basically arbitrary. Committing a crime means losing certain rights for a certain time, and there doesn't seem to be much logic to saying that jail time should be the time lost for all rights. Other rights could be lost for more or less time. Not that they should get their 2A rights back before finishing their jail term! I don't see the logic though of depriving jail birds of the right to vote while in jail. They have to live under the same laws as everyone else, albeit with the consequences of violation. Arguably, the majority could be said to use jail to quash the political views of the minority who might disagree with the laws they are in jail for breaking, like marijuana prohibition.
I knew a guy in Chicago. His brother used to grow weed near the house where he lived in Wisconsin. He had a corn field that blocked the view of the weed from the road. One year the corn was stunted because of drought and he had to cut the weed early. He also had bee hives and his honey was called Some Honey. Not sure if he is still doing the bee hive thing or not. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Lay that BS at the feet of the deceased kikenvermin Sen. Frank Lautenberg! Total bullshit!!! “With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group." People don't lose their First Amendment rights, or any other rights....why is the Second Amendment so quickly and easily trampled??
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group." One year the corn was stunted because of drought and he had to cut the weed early. He also had bee hives and his honey was called Some Honey. Not sure if he is still doing the bee hive thing or not. ;) and this has what to do with what? Upon conviction of a crime, one loses their right to life, liberty and/or pursuit of happiness. Certainly the 4th goes away. They keep their 5th-8th.... So yeah, the 2nd can be stripped as well, I'd say.
2A rights should not be taken unless a firearm was used in the commission of a felony, imo
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
I know a guy living in Branson now who is a felon. He is not allowed to have any guns because of that. My stinking ex-friend told me I gave him one of my 9's because I could not pay him for helping me to move. That turned out to be a crock of BS. However, I do not think his felony had anything to do with guns. Just not quite sure since the meningitis wiped out so much memory. I remember visiting him when his wife had that baby girl in the bassinette taking a bath. He told me she left him and took their daughter with her. :-/ "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Agreed ! Logic, where did it go ???
Ephesians 5:11King James Version (KJV) "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. " The best thing about old age is that it doesn't last forever.
#2. To: X-15 (#0)
#3. To: Pinguinite (#2)
(Edited)
marijuana prohibition
#4. To: noone222 (#1)
(Edited)
Many men that have been accused and even convicted of spousal abuse have had their gun rights taken away.
-Alex Kurtagic 
#5. To: Pinguinite (#2)
-Alex Kurtagic
#6. To: BTP Holdings (#3)
I knew a guy in Chicago. His brother used to grow weed near the house where he lived in Wisconsin. He had a corn field that blocked the view of the weed from the road.
I used to be in a hurry, then I figured out I was just getting nowhere fast.
#7. To: X-15 (#5)
People don't lose their First Amendment rights, or any other rights....why is the Second Amendment so quickly and easily trampled??
#8. To: noone222, X-14, Shooters, 4 (#1)
#9. To: Lod (#8)
2A rights should not be taken unless a firearm was used in the commission of a felony, imo
#10. To: Lod (#8)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest