Appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent crimes can own guns

[Buck F]

Appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent crimes can own guns

The ruling is the latest defeat for gun control advocates in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that expanded gun rights nationwide.

www.nbcnews.com

A DUI in MA would be a nonviolent crime in MA, wouldn't it? Wonder how this will impact the 2 year sentence disqualification

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Good.

 

[Asaltweapon]

Appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent crimes can own guns

The ruling is the latest defeat for gun control advocates in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that expanded gun rights nationwide.

www.nbcnews.com

A DUI in MA would be a nonviolent crime in MA, wouldn't it? Wonder how this will impact the 2 year sentence disqualification

They listed it as a felony maybe??

I know people out of MA with firearms and OUI’s.

 

[GL2020]

Appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent crimes can own guns

The ruling is the latest defeat for gun control advocates in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that expanded gun rights nationwide.

www.nbcnews.com

A DUI in MA would be a nonviolent crime in MA, wouldn't it? Wonder how this will impact the 2 year sentence disqualification

I mean there are clean cut non violent crimes. A guy caught embezzling probably not all that violent. Dealing a little pot likely not violent.

But I have a feeling there will be alot of "Yeah but what-about this" situation. First thing came to my mind is guy caught OUI that causes property damage but no loss of life? This could get messy me-thinks.

 

[Buck F]

I mean there are clean cut non violent crimes. A guy caught embezzling probably not all that violent. Dealing a little pot likely not violent.

But I have a feeling there will be alot of "Yeah but what-about this" situation. First thing came to my mind is guy caught OUI that causes property damage but no loss of life? This could get messy me-thinks.

I was more referring to a DUI conviction in MA which puts you over the potential 2 year sentence limit rendering you a Prohibited Person at the Federal level.

 

[chuckules]

They listed it as a felony maybe??

I know people out of MA with firearms and OUI’s.

I was more referring to a DUI conviction in MA which puts you over the potential 2 year sentence limit rendering you a Prohibited Person at the Federal level.

Appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent crimes can own guns

The ruling is the latest defeat for gun control advocates in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that expanded gun rights nationwide.

www.nbcnews.com

A DUI in MA would be a nonviolent crime in MA, wouldn't it? Wonder how this will impact the 2 year sentence disqualification

The appellant in the linked case was charged with some sort of state welfare fraud, which there was a misdafelony punishable by up to 5 years.

Seems akin to the punishment of a Mass. OUI in the length of time triggering prohibition.

 

[rali]

Appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent crimes can own guns

The ruling is the latest defeat for gun control advocates in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that expanded gun rights nationwide.

www.nbcnews.com

A DUI in MA would be a nonviolent crime in MA, wouldn't it? Wonder how this will impact the 2 year sentence disqualification

Eventually. Maybe.

This was a 3rd circuit ruling. It would be precedent to be cited in a suit in 1st circuit. i haven’t followed all the attempts to litigate people out from under misdafelony bans so I don’t know what’s in flight that might be able to leverage this ruling.

Even assuming I understand how this circuit shit works in terms of impact on federal entities like NICS …

 

[Amputee Marksman]

They listed it as a felony maybe??

I know people out of MA with firearms and OUI’s.

Those would be people who picked up the OUI before MA changed the law so first time offenders can get max of 2 years instead of 1. I think the law was changed in 98 however I could be incorrect other than I'm pretty sure it was the late 90s.

 

[nstassel]

Those would be people who picked up the OUI before MA changed the law so first time offenders can get max of 2 years instead of 1. I think the law was changed in 98 however I could be incorrect other than I'm pretty sure it was the late 90s.

May 27 1994

 

[whacko]

Appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent crimes can own guns

The ruling is the latest defeat for gun control advocates in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that expanded gun rights nationwide.

www.nbcnews.com

A DUI in MA would be a nonviolent crime in MA, wouldn't it? Wonder how this will impact the 2 year sentence disqualification

The plaintiff in this case was convicted of a misdemeanor that carried up to 5 years......so it sounds like it would habe good impact on the .ass 2 year first offense dwi.


"Range pleaded guilty in 1995 to committing welfare fraud in Pennsylvania in order to obtain $2,458 of food stamps, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. He was sentenced to three years of probation."

 

[robjax]

"The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns", a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.


Realistically, they are not supposed to ban people who are convicted of any crime violent or otherwise from owning guns.

It's just nobody will stand up for that so they get away with it.

I recall researching the origins of 2A back some time ago.

One of the version prior to what we have now stipulated that convicted criminal would not be allowed to have 2A rights.

Then they removed that phrase.

If I can find find it again I will post it.

I hope that wasn't a dream.

 

[nstassel]

The 3rd Circuit has already made a similar ruling in Binderup v. Holder. but the Supreme Court rejected certiorari.

 

[GL2020]

I was more referring to a DUI conviction in MA which puts you over the potential 2 year sentence limit rendering you a Prohibited Person at the Federal level.

Oh yes I understood and I'm curious about that too.

Given New England is a different federal district isn't MA just going to ignore the whole thing anyway? 3rd US is like NJ, PA, DE, VI and maybe others but MA definitely not in there

 

[Asaltweapon]

Those would be people who picked up the OUI before MA changed the law so first time offenders can get max of 2 years instead of 1. I think the law was changed in 98 however I could be incorrect other than I'm pretty sure it was the late 90s.

I’m sorry I was not clear. My brain thinks faster than I type.
I was referring to other states.

 

[aphextwin11]

Appeals court says people convicted of nonviolent crimes can own guns

The ruling is the latest defeat for gun control advocates in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that expanded gun rights nationwide.

www.nbcnews.com

A DUI in MA would be a nonviolent crime in MA, wouldn't it? Wonder how this will impact the 2 year sentence disqualification

The short answer is nothing, for a number of reasons. The first is that this is that this was a 3rd circuit ruling, a circuit that does not include MA. I wouldn't count on 1st circuit judges deferring to this ruling in a 2A favorable way anytime soon unless they're forced to by big daddy Clarence. The second was that this ruling was 'as applied' to the plaintiff, meaning the restoration of rights related to the misdefelony disqualification only applied to Mr. Range and not everyone with a "non violent" misdefelony resulting from fraud in other 3CA states. Thirdly, and correct me if im wrong, I don't think the judges ever explicitly defined "non-violent" in this ruling, thus making it harder to more directly reference the ruling in a potential challenge to the MA OUI misdefelony.

However, this is potentially good news for a number of reasons as well. This ruling was passed with an 11-4 split with BOTH 2a friendly and non 2a friendly (at least, on paper) judges concurring. This wasn't something that came about "along party lines" so to speak, and indicates there are corners of the world where liberal judges are starting to rule based on the constition as it relates to 2A, and arent outwardly acting like a bunch of judicial activist wierdos in every instance. Secondly, it provides another notch at the circuit of appeals striking down "non violent" 2a rights prohibition, which gives me the warm and fuzzies. Thirdly, because this is likely to open the door to numerous challenges by others in the 3CA who had their 2A stripped under similar circumstances AND the fact that prosecutors will need future guidance, I'd probably expect the state to apply for certiorari (appealing to the Supreme court) in a 2A friendly bench. Alternatively, if this stopped here in the 3CA and certiorari was denied, there is still a strong likelihood the supreme court will take up the non violent misdefelony issue in the near future. The reason for this, is because there is another pending case very similar to this one in the 2nd circuit, a traditionally 2A averse group. I forgot the exact name of the case, but the details are essentially the same as the Range v. Garland case but the fraud numbers were in the millions. If the 2CA rules in the opposite direction as the 3CA did here, a circuit split would be ripe for plucking by the Supreme court.

I wouldn't expect this ruling to have any immediate impact to the MA OUI misdefelony, however it certainly nudges the window open a little wider; if nothing else, it provides the potential for the Supreme court to pick up the issue which under the current makeup, could be a very good thing.

In the meantime, put your couch coins in the piggy bank and give Jason Guida a call.

 

[Happy feet]

I’ll be sending my couch coins to attorney Neal Tassel. Judging from his response to this thread he seems to be on top of the issue

 

[HARRYM]

I am aware that 1999 was 24 years ago but I have LONG stated that the MA 1999 gun bill was a straight up violation of constitutional rights. The 4th amendment abuse was, and is, obscene. Passing laws that turned settled cases into crimes as well as disqualifying many whose cases were long settled under a different understanding of the rules and the law at that time.

 

[Amputee Marksman]

I’m sorry I was not clear. My brain thinks faster than I type.
I was referring to other states.

My brain interpreted "out of MA" as meaning coming from MA.

 

[Dennis in MA]

If they can vote they should have gun rights. The 2A isn't a second class right.

 

[pdm]

If they can vote they should have gun rights. The 2A isn't a second class right.

If you're not in prison or a non-citizen, you should have gun rights. The right to self-defense isn't limited to just nice people. One could make an argument that if you're on probation, you might be prevented from carrying a gun on your person, but mere possession in the home, car, place of business or whatever shouldn't be illegal.

I don't say that because I want criminals to have guns, but to protect my right to own guns when the government decides that I have criminal wrongthink.

 

[tuna]

If Bernie Madoff had been released after serving his sentence, he should have had the right to defend himself from all those who he screwed over that wanted to kill him.

Hookers should have the right to protect themselves from Johns and Pimps.

Pedophiles should be able to carry so that decent people can have an excuse for shooting them in self defense.

I've said it before and will say it again. Convicts should be able carry. It will make parole boards think twice about letting them out of prison. And if they're that dangerous, just kill them in prison.

 

[timbo]

So......is using Medical (or even recreational) MJ considered a non-violent crime?

 

[aphextwin11]

So......is using Medical (or even recreational) MJ considered a non-violent crime?

Bruh

Edit: I decided to not be entirely snarky and take a shot to answer earnestly. This case (I think) did not explicitly define non violent. The closest we've come is the 5th circuit, namely ACB, who attempted to apply a standard of dangerousness to individuals and 2a prohibition. Can be best summarized as non-dangerous people should not lose 2A rights if they are convicted of a crime that would otherwise make them a PP, if the crime would be reasonably determined as one that would not attribute a dangerousness label to the defendant. if the crime (such as murder) would clearly attribute the person as "dangerous", then the gvt is well within its means to strip their 2A right based on historical context.

A MJ conviction, one could easily argue based on ACB's interpretation, does not make someone inherently dangerous and therefore could possibly be considered "non violent". I'm not sure that has ever been hashed out (pun intended) at the district or court of appeals level, but I'm not following anything and everything and I'm not a lawyer.

If you were talking about MJ use absent an actual conviction, and I hate to be that guy because I find similar responses annoying, this has been addressed numerous times on NES. You can find a recent discussion by clicking the link I shared quoting your reply.

 

[nstassel]

The disqualification at issue is being a felon or a "misdefelon". Being a user of illegal drugs is an entirely different disqualification.

 

[P51MA]

I mean there are clean cut non violent crimes. A guy caught embezzling probably not all that violent. Dealing a little pot likely not violent.

But I have a feeling there will be alot of "Yeah but what-about this" situation. First thing came to my mind is guy caught OUI that causes property damage but no loss of life? This could get messy me-thinks.

One of the main issues here is that A LOT A LOT A LOT of violent criminals are given plea deals for simple possession. It's basically standard routine.

Non-violent convictions absolutely should not make people PP's, just pointing out that this is a complication. OTOH, if people can't own guns, they should probably be in prison. If they arent in prison, they should be able to own guns.

 

[timbo]

The disqualification at issue is being a felon or a "misdefelon". Being a user of illegal drugs is an entirely different disqualification.

I understand totally...the thing that drives me absolutely bonkers is someone can be seriously hooked on "legal" prescribed opiates or mood altering drugs and I'm pretty sure they can truthfully answer the 4473 question NO. The hypocrisy is really loud with our laws concerning who can (and can't) buy a firearm.

 

[timbo]

Bruh

Edit: I decided to not be entirely snarky and take a shot to answer earnestly. This case (I think) did not explicitly define non violent. The closest we've come is the 5th circuit, namely ACB, who attempted to apply a standard of dangerousness to individuals and 2a prohibition. Can be best summarized as non-dangerous people should not lose 2A rights if they are convicted of a crime that would otherwise make them a PP, if the crime would be reasonably determined as one that would not attribute a dangerousness label to the defendant. if the crime (such as murder) would clearly attribute the person as "dangerous", then the gvt is well within its means to strip their 2A right based on historical context.

A MJ conviction, one could easily argue based on ACB's interpretation, does not make someone inherently dangerous and therefore could possibly be considered "non violent". I'm not sure that has ever been hashed out (pun intended) at the district or court of appeals level, but I'm not following anything and everything and I'm not a lawyer.

If you were talking about MJ use absent an actual conviction, and I hate to be that guy because I find similar responses annoying, this has been addressed numerous times on NES. You can find a recent discussion by clicking the link I shared quoting your reply.

I've been around on this forum long enough to have pretty much read every post concerning this topic and I still can't stand the hypocrisy of these laws. To be clear, I am not a user but it seems you can be a "legal" user of prescribed opiates and other mind altering drugs and the law seems to give these people a free pass.

 

[Reptile]

If you're not in prison or a non-citizen, you should have gun rights. The right to self-defense isn't limited to just nice people. One could make an argument that if you're on probation, you might be prevented from carrying a gun on your person, but mere possession in the home, car, place of business or whatever shouldn't be illegal.

I don't say that because I want criminals to have guns, but to protect my right to own guns when the government decides that I have criminal wrongthink.

We have some Level 3 Sex Offenders in my town who have repeatedly gone back to rape children again after serving time. Level 3 means likely to offend again.

Should Level 3 Sex offenders be able to own and carry guns for self defense?

What about psychotic mentally ill people like this:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/vermont-homeless-shelter-axe-attack/index.html

They are not in jail, after all.

 

[pdm]

We have some Level 3 Sex Offenders in my town who have repeatedly gone back to rape children again after serving time. Level 3 means likely to offend again.

Should Level 3 Sex offenders be able to own and carry guns for self defense?

What about psychotic mentally ill people like this:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/vermont-homeless-shelter-axe-attack/index.html

They are not in jail, after all.

They shouldn't make it out of jail.

Well, OK, they can walk across the courtyard to the gibbet, but that's all I'm willing to grant. Times change, fashion changes, people don't. If they are that dangerous, send them to a higher court.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

@nstassel, and others, This decision in Third Circuit Court is not binding to all state courts, correct? This would have to be coming from Supreme Court I believe. I’m hearing conflicting opinions.