Court rules Federal criminal conviction disqualifier un Constitutional - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-21-2016, 10:54 AM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,069
Court rules Federal criminal conviction disqualifier un Constitutional

Time to get back to the discussion of 2A related issues...

https://www.saf.org/appeals-court-ru...ase-2a-rights/

While a couple months old, this is a pretty significant decision. It essentially strikes down the blanket prohibition on possessing arms after conviction for a crime punishable by more than one year's imprisonment. Of note, it was an en banc decision
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-21-2016, 01:44 PM
PolymerMan PolymerMan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,437
But it applies only to misdemeanors.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-21-2016, 04:24 PM
Cappi Cappi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 14,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by wccountryboy View Post
Time to get back to the discussion of 2A related issues...

https://www.saf.org/appeals-court-ru...ase-2a-rights/

While a couple months old, this is a pretty significant decision. It essentially strikes down the blanket prohibition on possessing arms after conviction for a crime punishable by more than one year's imprisonment. Of note, it was an en banc decision
What's "en banc" mean, CB?

Thanks

LTA
__________________
K.I.S.S.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 11-21-2016, 04:35 PM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappi View Post
What's "en banc" mean, CB?

Thanks

LTA
Rather than a 3 or 5 member panel, the entire Court sat for the decision. Its relatively uncommon for Federal Circuit Court of Appeal; its usually only done when the case before them has significant Constitutional or legal implications.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-21-2016, 04:37 PM
Jolly Rogers Jolly Rogers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: North Eastern West Virginia
Posts: 4,923
I believe it means the whole roster of judges voted. The whole bench not just a selected panel.
Joe
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-21-2016, 05:36 PM
mzanghetti mzanghetti is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Groton,CT
Age: 61
Posts: 129
Interesting Case

This a very interesting development in that the majority held that the 2nd Amendment rights being taken away on a permanent basis was unconstitutional, this is again an expansion of second amendment rights in the vein of both Heller and McDonald the next few years may prove to be unique in terms of their effect on 2 amendment law! The fact that the Binderup and Suarez both quote the Heller decision shows that it is quickly becoming an earthquake in terms of it's effect in many ways. I had a teacher in High School say to me: "May you live in interesting times." I am not sure I will ever forgive him for that! But it is going to be a wild ride for the four years ahead. Thanks for posting this thread!
__________________
Mark Zanghetti

USAF 1981-1985
http://www.thewebcorner.net
Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit.

Last edited by mzanghetti; 11-21-2016 at 05:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-21-2016, 05:45 PM
Vern Humphrey Vern Humphrey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arkansas, deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 4,310
I'll bet that's got Ruth Bader Ginsberg's panties in a twist!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-21-2016, 06:25 PM
Sock Sock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey View Post
I'll bet that's got Ruth Bader Ginsberg's panties in a twist!
If she has even heard about it.
__________________
I support the only reasonable restriction of the Second Amendment. After all, who really needs a nuclear weapon?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-21-2016, 06:38 PM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sock View Post
If she has even heard about it.
Or recognized it for what it is... she's not of sound mind any longer.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-21-2016, 07:12 PM
clt_capt clt_capt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey View Post
I'll bet that's got Ruth Bader Ginsberg's panties in a twist!
Depends
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-21-2016, 07:27 PM
Carl in GA Carl in GA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Coastal GA
Posts: 3,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by clt_capt View Post
Depends
Well played.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑβΕ
NRA Endowment Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-21-2016, 07:38 PM
Goodchute Goodchute is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 466
This is an important decision, one which will continue to play out. Can't wait to see where this leads.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-21-2016, 08:04 PM
kinnison kinnison is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: oklahoma
Posts: 887
How will this effect people convicted 10,20 ,30 or evan 50 years ago .
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-21-2016, 08:05 PM
brickeyee brickeyee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,172
Only covers the third district.

District of Delaware
District of New Jersey
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court of the Virgin Islands

Need another district Appeals Court to rule differently to move it up.
SCOTUS then will settle the conflict.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-21-2016, 08:12 PM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickeyee View Post
Only covers the third district.

District of Delaware
District of New Jersey
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court of the Virgin Islands

Need another district Appeals Court to rule differently to move it up.
SCOTUS then will settle the conflict.
Correct... though even without a conflicting ruling, the AG and ATFE (the defendants in this case) could appeal the ruling. The latter is actual more important, because they're responsible for the transfer of firearms, and have been told by a Federal Court that the way they're currently doing business doesn't pass Constitutional muster. Additionally, Federal Courts often look at the decisions in other districts when rendering decisions. This establishs some case law.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-21-2016, 08:31 PM
mzanghetti mzanghetti is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Groton,CT
Age: 61
Posts: 129
Conflict

Quote:
Originally Posted by brickeyee View Post
Only covers the third district.

District of Delaware
District of New Jersey
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court of the Virgin Islands

Need another district Appeals Court to rule differently to move it up.
SCOTUS then will settle the conflict.
Apparently there has already been a conflicting ruling: "At least one of our sister courts has characterized Heller’s list of “presumptively lawful” regulations as dicta. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 451 (5th Cir. 2010)" This is quoted from Binderup, Suarez et al v U.S opinion. This is pre-Heller so I don't know what effect this may or may not have but we can hope!

So things may get moving on this quickly. We shall see soon I hope.
__________________
Mark Zanghetti

USAF 1981-1985
http://www.thewebcorner.net
Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-22-2016, 04:17 PM
brickeyee brickeyee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,172
"Dicta" means that part is NOT binding on other courts.

That would be a rather tough case to make.

Trying to argue that courts have held something non-binding and a latter court has hinted parts of it might be?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-22-2016, 04:27 PM
zogger zogger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey View Post
I'll bet that's got Ruth Bader Ginsberg's panties in a twist!
First, not a visual I'd like to see.

Second, hopefully this decisions stands. If Trump gets a Scalia like judge on the SCOTUS, we hopefully can get more decisions like this. It always seemed unfair that a non-violent felony from your youth could take away your rights forever.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-22-2016, 04:40 PM
Grizz12 Grizz12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Alaska
Posts: 784
This is about giving felons their 2A rights back?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-22-2016, 04:47 PM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizz12 View Post
This is about giving felons their 2A rights back?
Neither was a convicted felon. Both were convicted, over 15 years ago, of misdemeanors carrying a maximum sentence of over 2 years confinement- automatic, lifetime forfiture of 2A rights under currnet law. Neither served time for their convictions. Neither has had a run in with the law in the last 15+ years.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-23-2016, 11:25 AM
brickeyee brickeyee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by wccountryboy View Post
Neither was a convicted felon. Both were convicted, over 15 years ago, of misdemeanors carrying a maximum sentence of over 2 years confinement- automatic, lifetime forfiture of 2A rights under currnet law. Neither served time for their convictions. Neither has had a run in with the law in the last 15+ years.
The way Federal Law defines the sentence is convicted of a crime that 'could result in a sentence of more than one year.' [IIRC that is the exact wording but I cannot find it at the moment to reference it].

It is an odd definition that catches more than just felony convictions.

At the time there may not have been misdemeanors that had a possible sentence of more than one year.
Harsher sentencing moved some non-felonies into the 'greater than one year' category.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-23-2016, 11:41 AM
ekaphoto ekaphoto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 365
During the Clinton administration they made a law that any domestic violence conviction, even misdemeanor, you could not posses a firearm. This could over turn that. Tere were a bunch of military folks and even some police officers that lost their jobs because of this. Aslo some states do not allow you to get a CCW or posses a weapon for several years if you are convicted of DUI or other specific misdomeners.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-23-2016, 03:23 PM
jamiesaun jamiesaun is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boise
Age: 34
Posts: 6,769
I do not believe felons should loose gun rights and I never have. Guy with a dui can't protect his family anymore? That's ridiculous.
__________________
Jamie
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-23-2016, 03:54 PM
JT... JT... is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey View Post
I'll bet that's got Ruth Bader Ginsberg's panties in a twist!
You mean her depends. hoping she gets the hell out soon...

Last edited by JT...; 11-23-2016 at 04:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-23-2016, 05:13 PM
stevemaury stevemaury is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiesaun View Post
I do not believe felons should loose gun rights and I never have. Guy with a dui can't protect his family anymore? That's ridiculous.
DUI is not a felony, except after multiple convictions, in some states.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 PM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved