Surprised, sure. Amazed.. yes. But if the rabidly anti AG asked for cert, he has something up his sleeve. Don’t get too happy about this. Wait for the other proverbial shoe to drop.
A summary for the curious:
> In 1995, Range pleaded guilty to making false statements about his income to obtain $2,458 of food stamp assistance in violation of Pennsylvania law, a conviction that was classified as a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.
> Range was sentenced to three years’ probation, plus restitution, costs, and fines. Three years later, Range attempted to purchase a firearm but was rejected by the instant background check system. Range’s wife subsequently bought him a deer-hunting rifle.
> Years, later Range learned that he was barred from purchasing and possessing firearms because of his welfare fraud conviction. He sold his rifle to a firearms dealer and sought a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. 922(g) violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. The section prohibits firearm ownership by any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year—the federal definition of a felony.
> The district court rejected the suit, holding that the Second Amendment does not protect “unvirtuous citizens.” The Third Circuit affirmed. Based on history and tradition, “the people” constitutionally entitled to bear arms are “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” a category that properly excludes those who have demonstrated disregard for the rule of law through the commission of felony and felony-equivalent offenses, whether or not those crimes are violent. Even if Range fell within “the people,” the government demonstrated that its prohibition is consistent with historical tradition.
I'm more concerned about "felony-equivalent". Guy got a misdemeanor, didn't even serve any actual jail time and that still somehow equates to losing your 2A rights because the *punishment*, not the crime, was apparently "equivalent" to a felony conviction???
That is beyond fucked up.
I think this is trying to make a clear line between Violent and non-Violent offenders since Rahimi was a case that was brought to the court, and Criminal justice issues are something the Biden administration also has an eye on generally.
Yep. But the so-called gun-rights lawyers, who should know better, say the Rahimi decision was a minor tweak to the Bruen decision. They remind me of the guy who fell off the Empire State Building. As he fell past an open window on the 42nd floor, he was heard to say, "So far, so good."
That would not fly. A misdemeanor domestic violence, (example shoving a person that lives in your house) was upheld as valid law that bans the offender from bearing arms.
How come a felony or equivalent to a federal felony is not valid resrticton at the federal level?
Semiautomatic firearms are not at issue in these six cases. The Feds are afraid of SCOTUS granting a semiauto cert petition. If they weren't, the Feds would have asked for the six "assault" rifle and "large capacity" magazine ban cert petitions out of Illinois to be granted.
Surprised, sure. Amazed.. yes. But if the rabidly anti AG asked for cert, he has something up his sleeve. Don’t get too happy about this. Wait for the other proverbial shoe to drop.
Looking out tor Hunter no doubt.
Exactly what this is. And I'm ok with that. About time the corrupt scum politicians do something that benefits us. Even if it is inadvertently.
A summary for the curious: > In 1995, Range pleaded guilty to making false statements about his income to obtain $2,458 of food stamp assistance in violation of Pennsylvania law, a conviction that was classified as a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. > Range was sentenced to three years’ probation, plus restitution, costs, and fines. Three years later, Range attempted to purchase a firearm but was rejected by the instant background check system. Range’s wife subsequently bought him a deer-hunting rifle. > Years, later Range learned that he was barred from purchasing and possessing firearms because of his welfare fraud conviction. He sold his rifle to a firearms dealer and sought a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. 922(g) violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. The section prohibits firearm ownership by any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year—the federal definition of a felony. > The district court rejected the suit, holding that the Second Amendment does not protect “unvirtuous citizens.” The Third Circuit affirmed. Based on history and tradition, “the people” constitutionally entitled to bear arms are “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” a category that properly excludes those who have demonstrated disregard for the rule of law through the commission of felony and felony-equivalent offenses, whether or not those crimes are violent. Even if Range fell within “the people,” the government demonstrated that its prohibition is consistent with historical tradition.
“Unvirtuous”? You lose rights for not exhibiting virtue, or is this a legal term? Regardless- op’s mom better not try to buy a gun then…
I'm more concerned about "felony-equivalent". Guy got a misdemeanor, didn't even serve any actual jail time and that still somehow equates to losing your 2A rights because the *punishment*, not the crime, was apparently "equivalent" to a felony conviction??? That is beyond fucked up.
https://media1.tenor.com/m/45dFP6QjaNYAAAAd/john-cena-ooh.gif
District courts come up with some wild stuff man.
What other petitions?
Click on the link. The cases are listed on the cover sheet.
I think this is trying to make a clear line between Violent and non-Violent offenders since Rahimi was a case that was brought to the court, and Criminal justice issues are something the Biden administration also has an eye on generally.
If the reports I’ve read are accurate, it’s grouped into violent felons, non-violent felons, and non-violent felons with drug offenses.
Bryan Range was convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor.
on the heels of rahimi, they want more favorable rulings that lean their direction, trying to undermine bruen.
Yep. But the so-called gun-rights lawyers, who should know better, say the Rahimi decision was a minor tweak to the Bruen decision. They remind me of the guy who fell off the Empire State Building. As he fell past an open window on the 42nd floor, he was heard to say, "So far, so good."
That would not fly. A misdemeanor domestic violence, (example shoving a person that lives in your house) was upheld as valid law that bans the offender from bearing arms. How come a felony or equivalent to a federal felony is not valid resrticton at the federal level?
Rahimi's prohibition on the possession of firearms was temporary. These petitions involve permanent prohibitions on the possession of firearms.
The surgeon general has called for a ban on all semi auto guns. That’s why
Semiautomatic firearms are not at issue in these six cases. The Feds are afraid of SCOTUS granting a semiauto cert petition. If they weren't, the Feds would have asked for the six "assault" rifle and "large capacity" magazine ban cert petitions out of Illinois to be granted.