Ninth Circuit: Felons can have firearms.

[ZX9RCAM]

Just to help you with your decision making on this one. Here is a list of federal laws that could (if they wanted to) take away your guns.

1) Transporting dentures across state lines (18 USC 1821)
2) Using Smokey Bear without permission (18 USC 711)
3) Providing a pirate with provisions (18 USC 1657)
4) Climbing a tree at the Supreme Court (40 USC 6133)
5) Writing a $1 Check (18 USC 336)
6) Injuring a government owned lamp (40 USC 81-3(b)(4)
7) Roller skating in an undesignated area of a national park (36 CRF 2.20)
8) Mislabeling a Turkey as a Ham (9 CFR 381.171 d)
9) Issuing a false weather report (18 USC 2074)
10) Knowingly let pigs, cattle, horses and other livestock enter a fenced-in area on public land (18 USC 1857)
11) Displaying the 4-H emblem, sign, insignia, or words if you are not an active 4-H member (18 USC 707)
12) Selling diced onions fried as onion rings without saying so (21 USC 333)
13) It is a federal crime to advertise wine in a manner that suggest it has intoxicating qualities. (27 USC 205, 207 and 27 CFR 4.64(a)(8).

Let that sink in before you judge too quickly.

Those are all felonies?

 

[DocBeech]

Those are all felonies?

Crazy right. Writing a check for less than $1 is a felony. This is why we should never be too quick to judge.

"Whoever makes, issues, circulates, or pays out any note, check, memorandum, token, or other obligation for a less sum than $1, intended to circulate as money or to be received or used in lieu of lawful money of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

 

[OldPhart]

My opinion: If you're an ex-con with a violent past...no gun for you!

My thoughts also. If you are in prison for a violent crime, whether or not you used a weapon, I don't want to give you the ability to obtain and use one (legally) in the event you get out. If, on the other hand your name is Bernie Madoff, I don't see a problem.

It's common sense, but unfortunately the 9th is in California. I lived there for too many years and have seen too many stupid decisions from that "circus".

 

[DoubleDuty]

That's because, as SCOTUS has often told us, no right is unlimited.
Many in this thread don't seem to understand that.



Yes, our Founding Fathers made it quite clear that it's OK to restrict God-given rights. If we don't like that fact, we can change our Constitution.



No, that's not what it says. You are mis-understand the meaning of the word "infringed" in 1792, and the context in which the Constitution was written. The proof is in the pudding -- there were gun control laws written in the era of our Founding Fathers, by the same people who attended the Constitutional Convention.



Yes, but this is not a Constitutional question. Also, every human walking the Earth has their rights restricted, as we know that no right is unlimited. You have freedom of speech, but you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded building, etc, etc.



Again, not a Constitutional question. Sentencing is too light and sentences are commuted and reduced too easily. Prisoner rights are too big a concern. People not in jail must have their full rights, there is no tiered system of rights for people not in jail.



No, it's showing you that Republican Presidents are important. Both the judges who voted in favor of this ruling were appointed by Bush.
But for anyone who is unhappy with this ruling, relax. It has a decent chance of getting overturned en banc.

Oh really, sorry but your interpretation of the 2nd is what's wrong. The meaning is exactly what it says

Just to help you with your decision making on this one. Here is a list of federal laws that could (if they wanted to) take away your guns.

1) Transporting dentures across state lines (18 USC 1821)
2) Using Smokey Bear without permission (18 USC 711)
3) Providing a pirate with provisions (18 USC 1657)
4) Climbing a tree at the Supreme Court (40 USC 6133)
5) Writing a $1 Check (18 USC 336)
6) Injuring a government owned lamp (40 USC 81-3(b)(4)
7) Roller skating in an undesignated area of a national park (36 CRF 2.20)
8) Mislabeling a Turkey as a Ham (9 CFR 381.171 d)
9) Issuing a false weather report (18 USC 2074)
10) Knowingly let pigs, cattle, horses and other livestock enter a fenced-in area on public land (18 USC 1857)
11) Displaying the 4-H emblem, sign, insignia, or words if you are not an active 4-H member (18 USC 707)
12) Selling diced onions fried as onion rings without saying so (21 USC 333)
13) It is a federal crime to advertise wine in a manner that suggest it has intoxicating qualities. (27 USC 205, 207 and 27 CFR 4.64(a)(8).

Let that sink in before you judge too quickly.

Which proves that Congress has always had dumbasses in it.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Yes. A non violent felony like a returned check not picked up can lead to a fine and/or
probation for over 1 year. This could be the only felony that someone has committed
and would keep that person for having a gun.

I agree that a violent felon should not be able to own a gun.

ETA...I know 2 people with my 1st statement that have an LTC

But the reason a violent felon shouldn't be able to possess a gun is the same reason he can't possess a car, because he is locked up.

A citizen who has served their sentence should have all rights restored the moment they exit the prison.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[majormadmax]

That ended quickly...

 

[etmo]

A citizen who has served their sentence should have all rights restored the moment they exit the prison.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[MountainGirl]

That ended quickly...

Thanks for this, just had a chance to watch it. Very informative.

 

[majormadmax]

Thanks for this, just had a chance to watch it. Very informative.

I highly recommend subscribing to Willliam Kirk's videos, some are focused on Washington state but most are applicable to all gun owners!

He's actually a lawyer I can stand!


(just kidding, I know a lot of great lawyers!)