The Supreme Court Monday declined to take a challenge to a Wisconsin law banning state residents who have been convicted of felonies – including non-violent crimes – from owning handguns for the rest of their lives...The question of whether states can ban non-violent felons from owning guns has repeatedly come up at the Supreme Court but remains unanswered. The justices declined to take up three similar challenges earlier this year, allowing to stand lower court rulings that upheld similar state laws. One of those cases involved a man who had pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit cassette tapes in the 1980s. [More]
Well, not just "handguns," but we're dealing with "real reporters" here.
Funny, what can constitute a "non-violent crime"...
Let's hear it for "gun rights leaders" who urge government to "Enforce existing gun laws"!
And thanks again, "conservative" justices!
4 comments:
Well this is sad.
Predictable.
As for you writing "Let's hear it for "gun rights leaders" who urge government to "Enforce existing gun laws"!"
We ALL need to say the same thing.
"counterfeit cassette tapes"
This is the standard gun-law shell game.
"Of the 40,000 people who have been denied firearms since the instant check system took effect in November,...
Three-fourths of gun purchases rejected under the Brady Law are turned down because the buyer has a felony record. But most of these crimes are old offenses and relatively minor felonies, such as writing bad checks.
The bureau did not have a total for the arrests that resulted. But they included a man in Oklahoma for embezzlement; a woman in Texas for tampering with government records; one man in Indiana for child neglect and another there for larceny; a man in Texas for criminal nonsupport of family members; and a man in Missouri, a woman in Nebraska and a man in Mississippi on separate fraud warrants.
In one case, Roehm says, the ATF declined to prosecute a black man who had been convicted of a felony 40 years ago in Mississippi. His offense: possession of playing cards that featured naked white women.
Behold the "felons, fugitives, and stalkers" that the Clinton administration repeatedly assured us that Brady would be so successful at stopping.
Why do you suppose they tout the denials, but never tout charges filed, arrests, or convictions?
Because the percentage would be a mere rounding error greater than zero.
Where did the courts get the idea that denying Constitutional rights to ex-felons was itself Constitutional? And why just the second amendment rights, and the right to vote? Why not serve their purposes better by denying the right to not self-incriminate, the right to a trial and due process, or even the right to not be punished in a cruel and unusual way? Is there a hidden clause in the Constitution specifying which rights are revokable?
Post a Comment