Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns, and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.
As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
I've made my position on this clear for years--anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. But this isn't about that--and I will address it in a post next week--or even about more appropriate sentencing.
I can't help but wonder if some on the side of the Enemy want to bring forth cases they know they'll lose--damage control so post-Heller limitation precedents can be established.
Probably just me being paranoid.
According to Joyce Malcolm -http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/malcolm_joyce -
ReplyDeletein old England, the courts construed the gun laws to allow Catholics and felons to possess guns in the home. In those days a mans home was his castle.
I tend to think that even felons in the US today should be able to possess a gun for self-defense, at least in the home.
Think about poor Scooter Libby, he's a felon now (for not remembering very well his conversations about an incident that wasn't a crime), should he be defenseless in his home?
If we extend the right to arms to felons (at least within the home) it might reduce the efforts of the anti-gun people to increasingly criminalize actions in order to produce more gun-prohibited people.
Scott
You have a right to be paranoid. Why? It isn't really paranoia when they are out to get you.
ReplyDeleteThose who come with evil in their hearts and minds shall leave in a body bag...
ReplyDeleteposession laws don't work, they just help create black markets. why should it be different for guns? it's still a crime to murder someone, and felons still have their inalienable human rights.
ReplyDelete"anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian."
ReplyDeleteThe catch here is that, by committing a felony, they've already shown that they can't be trusted without a custodian. That's why we put them in jail, and why they get put on probation when they get out.
However, there does need to be a specific process to "restore" a felon's rights after they have finished their sentence and probation.
I don't think these guys will get anywhere, though. At most, they'll get that process to restore their right, probably x years of good behaviour after they've completed their probation.
Perhaps you miss the point, Riposte3. The whole scam is to make everything "illegal" so that we can all be controlled - including disarmed.
ReplyDeleteMany, if not most of the "felons" being denied their right to self defense have done nothing to harm another person.
Of course, the ideal "sentence" for someone who would commit aggression against another person (the only true crime) is death at the hands of their intended victim.
How long do you think it would take to clean up the gene pool at that rate?
federal law (as far as 2nd Amendment rights are concerned) makes a person a felon for life if that person is ever convicted of a felony crime.
ReplyDeleteIt is alleged that several firearms were discovered in Barton’s home and as a result he has subsequently been charged with the federal charge of Felon in Possession of a Firearm.
Barton is claiming that even though he has been convicted of 2 felonies in the past, the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s DC v Heller decision allows him to keep firearms in his home for self defense purposes. He insists that an individual who has completed his felony sentence and has been freed should have the same right to defend his life, his loved ones, and his property as do all other people.
One of the interesting concepts mentioned in the AP story is that apparently once an individual is convicted of a felony, the federal government considers that person to be “untrustworthy” for the rest of his life no matter; how long ago the felony was committed, how inconsequential that felony may have been, or even if what the individual did is no longer a felony offense. (ie. Texas law in the 70's classified the stealing of a can of Spam a felony).
If these people are so evil, nefarious, and untrustworthy why does the state; release them from prison, allow them to vote, allow them a drivers license, allow them free movement, allow them free exercise of religion and free speech when their sentence is completed?
If a person is such a sociopath, and/or evil individual that he cannot ever be trusted to exercise all his fundamental rights protected by the Constitution he should never be freed from prison in the first place. If he is not to be included in the Constitution’s phrase “the people” he should never be allowed to mingle with “the people”. I’m sure there must still be a place where these folks may be placed (maybe Manhattan or some other island paradise, like Gitmo) so that the rest of us will not have to resort to branding, amputation, embroidered stars to be worn on clothing, or some other readily recognizable signs of social stigma in efforts to further distance ourselves from these unclean creatures.
mamaliberty:
ReplyDeleteI was actually addressing only the main thrust of the article - whether or not a "felon" should have his rights restored after completing his sentence. What should be considered a felony is a completely separate topic.
Addendum to my previous post:
ReplyDeleteDue to my professions for the last 38 years (Texas Peace Officer & Corrections) I've been associating with what the rest of you consider the criminal element, both felons and misdemeants, on a daily basis. I have found these people for the most part are as humanistic as the folks who have not been locked up as a result of being caught participating in a criminal action. I'd rather associate with "the Criminal element " than with the; "Pray with me on Sunday" and "Screw you on Monday" types.
I believe if some one needs to be placed into "time-out" or even have his "butt whupped", once time-out is completed or the butt whupping is done - That's it punishment over! - forget it and move on! Don't try to make the person regret being born for the rest of his life.
I guess some people want the entire human race to live with guilt, remorse, and blame forever. As the words to the song go, "get over it!"
Here's the fault with this agenda. Felons have lost their rights of citizenship having been convicted of a felony. In DC v Heller the court noted felons could not own firearms and the reason was because this ruling was for citizens rights.
ReplyDeleteHere's where this ruling opens up the door for folks who are not allowed to own a firearm at this time. People who have a petty DV conviction are still citizens.
Felons can't vote being they lost citizenship and need to find a legal challenge to get a system in place that someone who's paid their dues for having committed a felony can get their citizenship restored. This is the wrong avenue and the wrong case to make their point.
David,
ReplyDeleteIf you're being paranoid, then so am I. My first thought reading about it was whether it was being financed by the Brady's or Joyce's as they both said first off this would be the standard case being brought up.
Avejoe, Y
ReplyDeleteYou're telling me that so-called felons no longer have their rights. They are no longer citizens. They are no longer a part of "the people".
They are, however required to pay taxes, obtain licenses to operate the few businesses that are still open to them and operate motor vehicles. They have had all their rights taken from them but none of the obligations? I can't find anything in the Constitution that supports your position.
Sounds as if; as long as it's happening to someone else it's none of your concern. Who do you think is going to stand up for you when it's your turn?
They pay taxes so they can enjoy the services of government. Which has nothing to do with citizenship.
ReplyDeleteIn order to win you have to understand the mind set of the people you're going up against.
Now if you want to make this personal I can do that very easily and trust me, you will look foolish when its all done and said. Learn to understand what it is you are reading and not be so jaded that your reading comprehension is under-minded by non-constructive and childish demeanor. Am I getting through?
Let us not make this personal.
ReplyDeleteMy position is that if you can't be trusted with a gun, you are also too dangerous to be trusted with matches, knives, hands and unfettered access to others. Such people need to prove themselves trustworthy--in come case, it can never be done--in others, the system is not designed to demonstrate it.
But we also need to bnot lose sight of the fact that Olofson is now a prohibited person. And there but for the grace of God go many of us. Cases like these are the "right ones" from a public palatability standpoint, but thanks to the "Vote Freedom First President's" administration in Emerson and Bean, even that door is closed to us.
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteMy point is clear that misdemeanors are not crimes that should have any bearing on a citizen's rights. Also if a person who lost their rights of citizenship should have a very clear avenue with written guidelines to get that citizenship back.
However for right now, we have the DC v Heller ruling that only notes felons and the mentally ill. Which I believe misdemeanors was left out with intent. I very much would like to see Bob Barr's cleaned up gun laws removed off the books giving these people their Second Amendment rights back. This is a great starting point.
If we are going to continue as we are currently doing, then we should be courageous enough to label every sentence for every felony as a life sentence.
ReplyDeleteIt should be trumpeted across the land loud, clear, and often.
If nothing else, it would get rid of a lot of cops. Because there would be a Hell of a lot more resistance to arrest (and cops would run home and hide and quit), a Hell of a lot fewer piss poor lawyers (those unable to make it in private practice and incompetent to make it as prosecutors when they actually have to do the work) who become prosecutors because they would have less to deal as an incentive to plea to a lesser charge, and whole lot of gridlock in the courts (all good things) because almost everybody would go to trial and fight like Hell to avoid conviction.
I am one of the most peaceable people I know, but I would fight and take as much company as possible with me to Valhalla before I would allow them to steal my citizenship and destroy my future at no cost to themselves.
If our current official position on this issue were to be exposed for what it is, I wouldn't be a minority of one.
avgJoe,
ReplyDeleteSorry about the delay. I work 12 hour shifts and if I’m not working, sleeping, or getting ready to go to work I have about 1-1/2 hours of free time in a 24 hour period.
If my 7/21 post led you to believe I was attacking you on a personal level, I apologize. That was not my intent.
I do disagree with what I believe are faulty conclusions in your 7/20 post. In an attempt to seek clarification on what appears to be your concept of a felon’s status as a citizen, or non-citizen, and to stimulate debate and invite additional comment I apparently worded my 7/21 post in such a manner that caused you to assume I was attacking you personally as opposed to simply questioning the rational behind your opinions. Again, that was not my intent.
First, I would ask that you prove, by citing statute or court precedent that:
1] felons have lost their “rights of citizenship”.
2] they’ve “lost citizenship”, and
3] a felon would need to get his “citizenship restored”.
Note: Justice Stevens, on p.9 of his dissenting opinion in DC v Heller recognizes, “…for even felons (and presumably irresponsible citizens as well) may invoke the protections of those constitutional provisions.”
And, on page #7 of the majority opinion Justice Scalia states, “We start therefore with a strong presumption that the 2nd Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to ALL AMERICANS.” [my emphasis]
Secondly, I believe you were in error when you stated , “In DC v Heller the court noted felons could not own firearms and THE REASON WAS (my emphasis) because this ruling was for citizens rights.”
Actually, on page 54 of the majority’s opinion Justice Scalia merely recognized what he refers to in footnote #26 on page 55 as “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” the fact that presently felons are prohibited from possessing firearms. And, that the court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on that particular regulation or other similar regulatory legislation or agency rules.
It appears that Justice Scalia was attempting to target only the DC ordinances in question and that the court intends that challenges to;
1] felons and mental incompetents with firearms,
2] the carrying of weapons in “sensitive places”, and
3] regulations aimed at “commercial sales of arms”
along with other “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” will need to be decided, if necessary, at later dates by future courts.
Just for information: “Presume” [verb] (the root for “presumptively”) is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as: “to believe something to be true because it is very likely, although you are not certain.”
Also: “Presumptive” [adjective] as defined in the Merriam Webster on-line dictionary 1 : based on probability or presumption 2 : giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief
It would follow that the “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” referred to by Justice Scalia just might not actually be “lawful regulatory measures”. He has apparently left the door open for interpretation in future court cases.