U.S. District Court finds provision of 1968 Gun Control Act unconstitutional

[Coded-Dude]

Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation continue to take bricks out of the huge wall that is gun control. Bravo Mr. Gura, Bravo!

In another victory for Second Amendment civil rights by attorney Alan Gura, a United States District Court found a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 unconstitutional as applied to some people who, like the plaintiff in the case, are currently law-abiding and not felons, adjudicated as mentally defective, or have a violent criminal history.

In the decision released today, Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge William W. Caldwell ultimately held that “Plaintiff [Julio Suarez] has established that his background and circumstances place him outside of the intended scope § 922(g)(1), and therefore the application of [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g)(1) violates Plaintiff’s Second Amendment protections.”

According to the decision, “On June 26, 1990, Julio Suarez was convicted in Montgomery County, Maryland of carrying a handgun without a license….The offense was a misdemeanor and subject to a term of imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than three years.”

Following the conviction, the record showed, Suarez was sentenced to 180 days imprisonment and a $500 fine–both suspended–and he was sentenced to one year probation. Suarez’s conviction, according to Defendants [United States Attorney General Eric Holder and others], places him within the scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which bars individuals convicted of certain offenses from possessing a firearm.

However, the Court held that “Plaintiff’s background and circumstances in the years following his conviction establish that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society….Therefore, we find that Plaintiff falls outside the intended scope of § 922(g)(1) and is distinguishable from those historically barred from Second Amendment protections.”


You can read the full opinion here.

The case docket is here.

 

[dennishoddy]

However, the Court held that “Plaintiff’s background and circumstances in the years following his conviction establish that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society….Therefore, we find that Plaintiff falls outside the intended scope of § 922(g)(1) and is distinguishable from those historically barred from Second Amendment protections.”

I'm not legalese proficient.

Is what I'm reading saying that if your a non-violent offender although a convicted felon, your ok with getting your 2A rights back now?

 

[Coded-Dude]

it was a misdemeanor gun charge(some non violent misdemeanors can get you banned). the court held he was "distinguishable from those historically barred;" felons, adjudicated as mentally defective, or have a violent criminal history...

 

[dennishoddy]

it was a misdemeanor gun charge(some non violent misdemeanors can get you banned). the court held he was "distinguishable from those historically barred;" felons, adjudicated as mentally defective, or have a violent criminal history...

That's still legalese.

but, I get that, I think.

Still didn't answer my question.

 

[Coded-Dude]

The case has nothing to do with felons, and we'd be hard pressed to get any judge to try and change that long standing rule(I don't agree with it, but allowing reformed felons to own guns is probably a hurdle we won't be able to overturn any time soon..."reasonable gun restrictions" does hold some public favour unfortunately). This merely sets a precedent for people convicted of non violent misdemeanors who can show they are now law-abiding citizens posing no threat to society; they have a chance to regain their second amendment rights.

I understand what you are saying about non-violent felons, but as stated, public opinion and the left will fight that fiercely and I don't see SCOTUS wanting to take that decision on. Besides there is already precedent that prohibiting felons is "reasonable." The best way to fight that would be to try and change what is a felony.

 

[dennishoddy]

The case has nothing to do with felons, and we'd be hard pressed to get any judge to try and change that long standing rule(I don't agree with it, but allowing reformed felons to own guns is probably a hurdle we won't be able to overturn any time soon..."reasonable gun restrictions" does hold some public favour unfortunately). This merely sets a precedent for people convicted of non violent misdemeanors who can show they are now law-abiding citizens posing no threat to society; they have a chance to regain their second amendment rights.

I understand what you are saying about non-violent felons, but as stated, public opinion and the left will fight that fiercely and I don't see SCOTUS wanting to take that decision on.

The federal Government allows felons to own certain guns.
Oklahoma does not recognize the federal law is what my base questions are about. Wondering if OK was going to change.

 

[Coded-Dude]

Ahhhh, I see. Sorry for the confusion. It's possible it could help(but not likely). This was a challenge to a federal restriction on a non felon, one would have to challenge the state's restriction on felons in federal court(which would be a states rights case IMHO), but you would need a good test case(a reformed non-violent felon) and an excellent lawyer willing to take on the battle.

 

[TedKennedy]

Ahhhh, I see. Sorry for the confusion. It's possible it could help(but not likely). This was a challenge to a federal restriction on a non felon, one would have to challenge the state's restriction on felons in federal court(which would be a states rights case IMHO), but you would need a good test case(a reformed non-violent felon) and an excellent lawyer willing to take on the battle.

How about a PARDONED violent offender?
Someone who was covicted of, say...assault and battery over twenty-five years ago, then received a pardon. (no more criminal acts, totally model citizen)

 

[Coded-Dude]

Pardoned or Expunged would be plausible.

Transmitted via Tactical Telecommunications Device

 

[HiredHand]

Too bad we can't get a judge to rule the entire GCA unconstitutional as well as the NFA.