Times Wrings Its Hands over Barrett and Guns

[Elwin]

I may be misunderstanding the argument, but I wouldn’t call the time served a period during which the right was suspended/revoked simply because you can’t possess firearms in prison. It’s only a result of the rules of the facility - you also lose the ability to possess a vehicle, cell phone, knives, etc. while physically behind bars. That’s not a legal revocation of the right to possess them once you’re in a different location. To put it another way, if that’s how it worked, people who serve time for low level misdemeanors that don’t qualify for revocation in any jurisdiction (or even spend a night in the drunk tank in county jail) would need their rights restored.

[revchuck38]

It makes sense to me that a person convicted of a violent crime should be barred from possession of arms, but for one convicted of a non-violent felony, things get kinda squooshy. A clarification on the federal level that abc felony convictions result in loss of gun rights, but xyz felony convictions don't, might be a good idea.

[DMF13]

To put it another way, if that’s how it worked, people who serve time for low level misdemeanors that don’t qualify for revocation in any jurisdiction (or even spend a night in the drunk tank in county jail) would need their rights restored.

No, because 18USC922(g)(1) prohibits those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, aka felonies, from possessing misdemeanors. The US Code also clarifies, that crimes labeled "misdemeanors," but are punishable by more than two years in prison, are also prohibiting convictions.

So most "misdemeanors" (with one exception noted) is NOT a prohibiting convictions, that would require a restoration of rights. The other exception would be convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (MCDV). Althought that's a different statute.

[Elwin]

No, because 18USC922(g)(1) prohibits those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, aka felonies, from possessing misdemeanors. The US Code also clarifies, that crimes labeled "misdemeanors," but are punishable by more than two years in prison, are also prohibiting convictions.

So most "misdemeanors" (with one exception noted) is NOT a prohibiting convictions, that would require a restoration of rights. The other exception would be convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (MCDV). Althought that's a different statute.

Right, but I understood your previous post as suggesting that any felon who served a sentence was deprived of their right to own firearms simply due to not being able to have firearms in their possession while in prison. In other words, that the right to own firearms needs to be “restored” when the only reason someone couldn’t possess them for a time was because they were physically located in a prison. That’s the part that isn’t the case.

[BehindBlueI's]

So even while serving a probation or parole sentence, the "felon" may possess firearms? What about while incarcerated? Are they allowed to possess firearms while in jail/prison?

If the answer to those questions is no, then it seems that their right to possess firearms is restored at the end of their sentence.

No, because 18USC922(g)(1) prohibits those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, aka felonies, from possessing misdemeanors. The US Code also clarifies, that crimes labeled "misdemeanors," but are punishable by more than two years in prison, are also prohibiting convictions.

So most "misdemeanors" (with one exception noted) is NOT a prohibiting convictions, that would require a restoration of rights. The other exception would be convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (MCDV). Althought that's a different statute.

I'm not sure what you're on about. Nobody is talking about misdemeanors other then you. Restoration has a set meaning and requirements set out in state law, not just because you were released from prison.

In summary, in my state you can be a prohibited person federally but not a prohibited person at the state level, depending on what your felony was. This is not new, not controversial, and is well established. Your state is likely different. That's ok. That doesn't make me wrong for my state.

[DMF13]

Nobody is talking about misdemeanors other then you.

Read Elwin's post, he brought up misdemeanors. Which is why I posted that information.

[BehindBlueI's]

Read Elwin's post, he brought up misdemeanors. Which is why I posted that information.

Right, but as a counter to your notion that since you can't have a gun in jail there's some restoration process that occurs upon you leaving. If you're in jail on a misdemeanor, you still can't have a gun while you're in there, which I believe is the point he's making.

[JAD]

No, Mr. Liptak, these justices are not looking to expand Second Amendment rights but reverse decades of their suppression.

Massive difference.


Okie John

Or just, you know, interpret the constitution as it was written.

[karandom]

I'm much rather see the court take up magazine capacity bans, assault weapons bans, concealed carry reciprocity and non uniform concealed carry issuance.

I don't plan to become a felon, but all of the above impact me as someone trapped in the north east.

This is definitely a selfish take

[spyderco monkey]

Archive link bypasses paywal:

https://archive.fo/my5T

FYI, using Archive will let you bypass the paywall on pretty much anything (NYT, Financial Times, Foreign Policy, etc paywalled news.)

http://archive.fo/