[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Activism See other Activism Articles Title: FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition) Supreme Court Brief: Non-Violent Felons Have Second Amendment Rights 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#2. To: X-15 (#0)
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. ;)
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?
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||