SCOTUS refuses case for gun rights on non-violent felons

[johndoe3]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/14/scotus- ... tment.html

Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take a case which challenged the issue of non-violent felons having guns, who have served their time and now live a respectable life. As it stands now, generally any felony conviction is a lifetime prohibition against gun ownership.

The gun case involved Barry Michaels, a Nevada Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate seat last year. Michaels, who describes his past as "checkered," pleaded guilty to several nonviolent federal crimes including mail fraud and securities fraud.

Michaels decided to get his act together during a stay in federal prison. Once released, he managed a variety of businesses, including a pizza parlor, and several unsuccessful bids for Congress.

Because of his rising star on the political scene, Michaels has said, he sought a gun for self-defense. But federal law prohibits the possession of firearms by felons. And in 2008, the Supreme Court held that "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons" are presumptively lawful.

Michaels argued that the 2008 decision also left open the possibility that felons are entitled to purchase weapons by cementing "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

Michaels has argued that he is both a felon and a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, he said, he is entitled to a gun.

My own view is that violent felonies are OK to prohibit for a lifetime; but many categories of non-violent felonies should have their voting and gun rights restored after they've completely served their time and probation periods--or at least have a process that can lead to restoring their full rights as citizens.

[poikilotrm]

You get sentenced, you do your time, you get out, you’re free again. The lifetime prohibition thing is total BS.

[John A.]

I would tend to agree on the first non-violent felony.

After the second felony conviction, well, that tends to show a trend that is likely to continue.

[poikilotrm]

I would tend to agree on the first non-violent felony.

After the second felony conviction, well, that tends to show a trend that is likely to continue.

What if the conviction was due to a plea bargain?

[John A.]

Don't continue to be doing stupid s--t.

[poikilotrm]

You are missing my point. Innocent people will frequently accept a plea bargain because fighting isn’t possible, or it is extremely undesirable to fight it. Example: https://www.bing.com/search?q=corey+may ... D000DAF827

[Capt. Link.]

What if the conviction was due to a plea bargain?

I know of a non violent felon that took a plea bargain to avoid confiscation of his home so his family had a roof over their heads.The problem is that they only had testimony of other felons.I see it as abuse of power to get a conviction at any cost.Lets face it many of us would confess to anything to save our loved ones from hardship. We need to revise many of our laws so non violent felons can rejoin society after they did their time.

[poikilotrm]

I have yet to have anyone give me a cogent argument in support of Martha Stewart being deprived of her Second Anendment rights.

[Capt. Link.]

I have yet to have anyone give me a cogent argument in support of Martha Stewart being deprived of her Second Anendment rights.

Thank you for making my day with a good chuckle.
We have many niggling laws that need to be addressed.I think that congress should not be allowed to pass any more laws and be forced to remove them till a six year old can understand every one.You can't fart around here without breaking a law!