3rd Circuit Case - Range v Atty General Non-Violent Misdemeanor as a Prohibitor

[krucam]

PA guy lied to get Food Stamps in the 90’s, charged with a misdemeanor, paid back what he got, law abiding since.

FPC Brief Argues Federal Law Banning Non-Violent Criminals From Firearms is Unconstitutional

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case of Bryan Range v. Att’y General of the U.S.

www.firearmspolicy.org

 

[KingClown]

If you can vote you can buy and carry a firearm anyway you see fit. This is the way

 

[RFBfromDE]

If you can vote you can buy and carry a firearm anyway you see fit. This is the way

I came around to this way of thinking.

 

[press1280]

I think he'll win. 3rd circuit has some decent case law on the matter (I forget the name, it was an en banc case).
This guy's crime is more or less minor fraud over 20 years old. Not even a close call.

 

[delaware_export]

The hearing was today… one of the judges was on fire!

see the fpc thread here… the questions of… could jaywalking forever deny a person, if it were a felony?

 

[jrumann59]

The hearing was today… one of the judges was on fire!

see the fpc thread here… the questions of… could jaywalking forever deny a person, if it were a felony?

Nothing like a Govt Lawyer cutting his own throat. I think he may not win his re-election with that comment.

 

[krucam]

Awesome!

 

[kstone803]

The OP article didn't mention it so I'll ask. How is he a prohibited person? Not a felon, not a multiple DWI, so what's the criteria he met to be prohibited? Is any misdemeanor conviction in PA a disqualifier?

 

[krucam]

The OP article didn't mention it so I'll ask. How is he a prohibited person? Not a felon, not a multiple DWI, so what's the criteria he met to be prohibited? Is any misdemeanor conviction in PA a disqualifier?

Believe it’s similar to MD law where the crime is punishable over a certain limit. Doesn’t matter if the time was served.

 

[delaware_export]

I’ve always figured that enough would be illegal, trivial things but with raised penalties, so that .gov, at its discretion, could find a way to prohibit anyone. The 3 felonies per day theory.

And the .gov attorney in this case seems to agree with the theory. Jaywalking. What else? next? Now?

and they also note that no other right, speech religion protest search etc, is so limited. Seems Scalia and Thomas view of a 2nd tier right was correct.

I realize that as we talk among ourselves here, we’re all preaching to the choir.

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

Ayn Rand

 

[delaware_export]

The article referenced in, and the first post itself seems to say it was food stamp fraud. Non violent felony, per the article.

The OP article didn't mention it so I'll ask. How is he a prohibited person? Not a felon, not a multiple DWI, so what's the criteria he met to be prohibited? Is any misdemeanor conviction in PA a disqualifier?

 

[Inigoes]

Third Circuit panel skeptical of felon’s right-to-carry claim​

https://www.courthousenews.com/third-circuit-panel-skeptical-of-felons-right-to-carry-claim/

 

[OneGunTex]

At first I was skeptical because I thought the guy was a convicted drugrunner/gangbanger which sounds violent to me.
But then it states that he is Prohibited from carrying a gun BECAUSE he was carrying a gun?!

GTFO

 

[Growler215]

Believe it’s similar to MD law where the crime is punishable over a certain limit. Doesn’t matter if the time was served.

Federal law. ATF Form 4473 question 21(d) specifies conviction for a Felony or "any other crime" (e.g. a misdemeanor) for which you  could have been sentenced to more than 1 year in prison.

So this depends on the max sentence for the state in which one was convicted.

 

[jc1240]

If you can vote you can buy and carry a firearm anyway you see fit. This is the way

IMHO no misdemeanor should cancel COTUS-guaranteed rights. IF it truly is a serious, make it a felony. This is not serious, but he stole from the crown which is worse to the crown than stealing from anyone else. Give his record of one conviction, paid the sentence and restitution paid, he paid his debt to society.

Third Circuit panel skeptical of felon’s right-to-carry claim​

https://www.courthousenews.com/third-circuit-panel-skeptical-of-felons-right-to-carry-claim/

Prohibited from exercising a COTUS-guaranteed right because he exercised that COTUS-guaranteed right. Legal system vs justice system.

 

[KingClown]

View attachment 467192


IMHO no misdemeanor should cancel COTUS-guaranteed rights. IF it truly is a serious, make it a felony. This is not serious, but he stole from the crown which is worse to the crown than stealing from anyone else. Give his record of one conviction, paid the sentence and restitution paid, he paid his debt to society.



Prohibited from exercising a COTUS-guaranteed right because he exercised that COTUS-guaranteed right. Legal system vs justice system.

I think even felons should have thier rights. If the system works they are reformed. If they cant be trusted to have a firearm then they should still be in prison being reformed.

 

[Garet Jax]

I think even felons should have thier rights. If the system works they are reformed. If they cant be trusted to have a firearm then they should still be in prison being reformed.

This theory is all based on a prison "reforming" a convict. We all know this doesn't happen often and in fact a very good case can be made that prison hardens people and is more likely to make them more of a criminal than anything else.

I do not believe prison reforms people - I think it punishes them and makes them waste copious amounts of their precious time. IMO - violent crimes should make it so a person can never get their right to own and carry a gun ever again.

 

[KingClown]

This theory is all based on a prison "reforming" a convict. We all know this doesn't happen often and in fact a very good case can be made that prison hardens people and is more likely to make them more of a criminal than anything else.

I do not believe prison reforms people - I think it punishes them and makes them waste copious amounts of their precious time. IMO - violent crimes should make it so a person can never get their right to own and carry a gun ever again.

I dont disaagree with you that way things are currently. I actually agree with you. But what that tells us is 2 things. 1st If someone goes to prison its most likely better for society to keep them there in its current form.
Second and more importantly our system is broken especially prisons and we need to fix that. No its not an easy answer and I havent the slightest clue where to even begin. But this is something we should be looking into. Prison was meant to reform and it doesnt. So what else can we do. Again if we cant trust them with a weapon how can we trust them to walk amongst us and our Wives and Children.

 

[RFBfromDE]

1st If someone goes to prison its most likely better for society to keep them there in its current form.
Second and more importantly our system is broken especially prisons and we need to fix that.

We?

"We" need to preserve the rights of citizens as intended by the Founding Fathers.

The rest is up to The State to figure out how to "reform" prisons.

 

[Garet Jax]

We?

"We" need to preserve the rights of citizens as intended by the Founding Fathers.

The rest is up to The State to figure out how to "reform" prisons.

I believe people are inherently good or inherently evil. A lot of this is based on their upbringing, but not all - some people are just born wrong. If someone is inherently evil, then past a very young age I believe there is no reform ever. Those who are inherently good, I believe there is no need to reform them. They just made a bad choice and would have chosen differently under different circumstances.

The problem I see is that in the 60s, the number of inherently good outweighed the number of inherently bad. That is changing nowadays.