Supreme Court Agrees to Hear New Gun Rights Case

[Mtn.man]

The US Supreme Court has decided to hear a new gun rights case, the first in quite a while. The court has been noticeable quiet on the issue of gun rights since their landmark Heller decision. The court passed up several cases over the last year which could have clarified the constitutionality of “may issue” carry permits.
This new case however is very specialized. The court will determine if felons have a right to sell/transfer firearms they own after their conviction.



http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court-cases/breaking-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-new-gun-rights-case/

[tim-adams]

if the firearm was legally and lawfully possessed prior to the incident its reasonable to allow the person to transfer or liquidate the firearms..
the government seizing them for their own purpose/use/sale does not sound fair to me. lets hope the SCOTUS agrees

[Ranger353]

"Upon his arrest, Henderson voluntarily gave the FBI his 19 firearms. As federal felons cannot possess firearms, Henderson later sought either to sell the guns to an interested buyer or to transfer ownership to his wife."

You can never predict what the Supreme's are going to focus on, or how they are going to rule on these types of cases. They may just set it aside after hearing all the oral arguments, or may rule that the lower court was an error for some technical reason and send it back down for reconsideration. Should be interesting. Personally, I think the guy should lose them to auction for being a stupid dumb-ass. If you're federal LEO then don't become a drug dealer, even if it is just pot. Just my opinion, I know many may not agree.

[tim-adams]

I would have changed the disposition of all my weapons before that day came. Agreed.
but dealing dope as a border agent *face palm* stupid

[Bailey Guns]

The court has been noticeable quiet on the issue of gun rights since their landmark Heller decision.

Uh-hmm.... What about McDonald v Chicago?

My response would've been, "Guns? I don't own any. My wife has a bunch of 'em, though." Why would you voluntarily give the gov't your guns or any other property for that matter?

On the other hand, I agree with the "some people are too stupid to own guns" sentiment.

[rondog]

if the firearm was legally and lawfully possessed prior to the incident its reasonable to allow the person to transfer or liquidate the firearms..
the government seizing them for their own purpose/use/sale does not sound fair to me. lets hope the SCOTUS agrees

Neither does the government and police agencies seizing "large amounts of cash" or guns and ammo from private citizens just because they have it and someone thinks it's "suspicious". As in "civil asset forfeiture".

[KAPA]

I maintain the thought that if you are a free person out in public then you should have all rights that any other American has. If you are dangerous and can't be trusted with firearms then your ass should be locked up.

What is to stop someone from stealing a gun or driving through a crowd of people with a truck? Hell, what about knives and fertilizer in a Ryder truck? There are unlimited ways you can cause mass carnage, why focus on a gun restriction? Are there other rights that felons are not allowed to exercise? Voting? Speech? Religion?

[Irving]

Voting I believe.

[asmo]

If you're really interested: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/henderson-v-united-states-2/

[Circuits]

Voting I believe.
Correct. Except in most jurisdictions they eventually, or even rather speedily, get their voting rights back upon completion of their sentence and probation and having a few years under their belts as reformed, productive non-criminals. Which almost never happens for gun rights.

Dems would never let being a felon disqualify their base from voting for too terribly long.

[KevDen2005]

I feel like many may criticize me, however, my belief is that if a felon has fulfilled his debt to society laid out by the courts, such as completing all jail time, probation, etc. and have committed no other crimes than they should have all of their rights again.

[th3w01f]

If you're really interested: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/henderson-v-united-states-2/


(1) transfer non-contraband firearms to an unrelated third party to whom the defendant has sold all his property interests; or (2) sell the firearms for the benefit of the defendant.

I'm not a lawyer but this seems kind of limited. Why cant the defendant 'give' the property to another person, relative or spouse? I think 'sold / sell' could end up being the deciding factor.

[Bailey Guns]

There is precedent in Colorado for allowing felons to possess firearms for defense of home and property. There's actually a stock jury instruction to that effect as an affirmative defense to a previous offender possessing a firearm.

[asmo]

There is precedent in Colorado for allowing felons to possess firearms for defense of home and property. There's actually a stock jury instruction to that effect as an affirmative defense to a previous offender possessing a firearm.

Can you provide me the hard data on that.

[BigDee]

There is precedent in Colorado for allowing felons to possess firearms for defense of home and property. There's actually a stock jury instruction to that effect as an affirmative defense to a previous offender possessing a firearm.

I'm guessing that only applies when there was no Domestic Violence involved. Last year one of the bills Hick signed permanently bans a person with a DV charge in their record from owning/possessing/having access to a firearm.

The idea of preventing someone from owning a firearm with a DV charge sounds good in theory except for the fact that DV's are often not what you think. If you and your spouse get into an argument and one shoves the other that's DV and you'll never be allowed to own a firearm as long as you live in Colorado. Pretty effed up if you ask me.

[Rumline]

Last year one of the bills Hick signed permanently bans a person with a DV charge in their record from owning/possessing/having access to a firearm. [facepalm]More California anti-gun retardation seeps into CO.

[Dave_L]

I feel like many may criticize me, however, my belief is that if a felon has fulfilled his debt to society laid out by the courts, such as completing all jail time, probation, etc. and have committed no other crimes than they should have all of their rights again.

I'd agree for all first time offenders. If you repeat, it sticks.

[Irving]

I'd agree for all first time offenders. If you repeat, it sticks.

Kind of agree. There should be a definitive structure as to what types of felonies prevent gun ownership, and then those can bar after repeat offenses. In some states, it is a felony to steal cable.

[KevDen2005]

I'd agree for all first time offenders. If you repeat, it sticks.

I could see that

[Rumline]

Forget felons, what about misdemeanor domestic violence? The bar for that is incredibly low and doesn't even require physical contact. To get a lifetime ban from essentially a he-said-she-said situation is not just.