Bad week for felons who want to have guns

[Disir]

Supreme courts in the two states that seemed potentially most open to preserving felons’ rights to keep and bear arms — Colorado and Louisiana — have rejected such claims.

In Colorado, a past Colorado Supreme Court precedent had seemingly concluded that the Colorado Constitution protects even felons, at least when it comes to keeping guns at home for self-defense. The Colorado Court of Appeals had followed that precedent. But Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted its precedents as not allowing such possession by felons, except when the felons arm themselves to protect against “imminent” attack (which is very difficult, given that, by the time an attack is imminent, it may be too late to get a gun). See State v. Carbajal (Colo. June 30, 2014) (5-to-2 vote).

In Louisiana, voters in 2012 revised the state constitutional right to bear arms to read, “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” In yesterday’s State v. Eberhardt (La. July 1, 2014), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the state ban on felons’ possessing guns remains constitutional (paragraph break added):

Read the rest here:
Bad week for felons who want to have guns - The Washington Post

I'm actually rather surprised for both.

 

[protectionist]

If you're a felon and you just want a gun for home self-defense, screw the law. Just get one and keep it handy IN THE HOUSE, and don't tell anybody, and don't use it for anything other then self-defense.

If it winds up that you have to use it (in self-defense) and your possession of it isn't legal, then > better to be a live jailbird, than a dead law abider, you think ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Supreme courts in the two states that seemed potentially most open to preserving felons’ rights to keep and bear arms — Colorado and Louisiana — have rejected such claims.

In Colorado, a past Colorado Supreme Court precedent had seemingly concluded that the Colorado Constitution protects even felons, at least when it comes to keeping guns at home for self-defense. The Colorado Court of Appeals had followed that precedent. But Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted its precedents as not allowing such possession by felons, except when the felons arm themselves to protect against “imminent” attack (which is very difficult, given that, by the time an attack is imminent, it may be too late to get a gun). See State v. Carbajal (Colo. June 30, 2014) (5-to-2 vote).

In Louisiana, voters in 2012 revised the state constitutional right to bear arms to read, “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” In yesterday’s State v. Eberhardt (La. July 1, 2014), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the state ban on felons’ possessing guns remains constitutional (paragraph break added):

Read the rest here:
Bad week for felons who want to have guns - The Washington Post

I'm actually rather surprised for both.

Quite a few states, and federal law, actually allow felons to regain gun rights, Louisiana happens to be one of them.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78740

Feel stupid yet? All the Supreme Court upheld was the 10 yer waiting period, not a complete ban on gun ownership by violent felons.

 

[Crystalclear]

I actually don't see that much of a problem with felons having guns for self defense.

 

[Meathead]

Felons and budding thugs with guns are why law-abiding people should have them. Since those thugs who want them are going to get them anyway, it makes no sense to restrict others in defending themselves.

 

[westwall]

Supreme courts in the two states that seemed potentially most open to preserving felons’ rights to keep and bear arms — Colorado and Louisiana — have rejected such claims.

In Colorado, a past Colorado Supreme Court precedent had seemingly concluded that the Colorado Constitution protects even felons, at least when it comes to keeping guns at home for self-defense. The Colorado Court of Appeals had followed that precedent. But Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted its precedents as not allowing such possession by felons, except when the felons arm themselves to protect against “imminent” attack (which is very difficult, given that, by the time an attack is imminent, it may be too late to get a gun). See State v. Carbajal (Colo. June 30, 2014) (5-to-2 vote).

In Louisiana, voters in 2012 revised the state constitutional right to bear arms to read, “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” In yesterday’s State v. Eberhardt (La. July 1, 2014), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the state ban on felons’ possessing guns remains constitutional (paragraph break added):

Read the rest here:
Bad week for felons who want to have guns - The Washington Post

I'm actually rather surprised for both.

I'm glad. Felons have shown they have no regard for the rights of those they harmed so their rights SHOULD be curtailed.

 

[September]

I'm glad. Felons have shown they have no regard for the rights of those they harmed so their rights SHOULD be curtailed.

Some "felonies" don't involve harming anyone.

Besides. Many felons are going to get guns anyway. If you would rather encourage felons to acquire guns in secret rather than registering any firearms, who is to blame when that makes solving a violent crime far more difficult?

Felons should be encouraged by the law to register any owned firearms, just like everyone else, rather than be "forbidden" to acquire and register guns that will likely be obtained in secret anyway.

 

[September]

If you're a felon and you just want a gun for home self-defense, screw the law. Just get one and keep it handy IN THE HOUSE, and don't tell anybody, and don't use it for anything other then self-defense.

If it winds up that you have to use it (in self-defense) and your possession of it isn't legal, then > better to be a live jailbird, than a dead law abider, you think ?

Wow. I never expected to hear something like that from you. Maybe I was wrong about you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those convicted of a felony were afforded comprehensive due process, including the right to appeal their convictions. For one to lose his civil rights as a consequence of a felony conviction is perfectly appropriate and Constitutional (DC v. Heller (2008)).

 

[westwall]

I'm glad. Felons have shown they have no regard for the rights of those they harmed so their rights SHOULD be curtailed.

Some "felonies" don't involve harming anyone.

Besides. Many felons are going to get guns anyway. If you would rather encourage felons to acquire guns in secret rather than registering any firearms, who is to blame when that makes solving a violent crime far more difficult?

Felons should be encouraged by the law to register any owned firearms, just like everyone else, rather than be "forbidden" to acquire and register guns that will likely be obtained in secret anyway.

Your argument is specious at best. All felonies harm someone. It might not be direct but they all do at some level. Felons DON'T follow the law, that's the point. Thus, when they are found to be in possession it is much easier to send them back where they belong.

As has been stated before, most States have "relief of disability" laws so that felons who ARE reformed can obtain their rights back...as they should be allowed to do, after they have shown they are trustworthy.

 

[Disir]

Supreme courts in the two states that seemed potentially most open to preserving felons’ rights to keep and bear arms — Colorado and Louisiana — have rejected such claims.

In Colorado, a past Colorado Supreme Court precedent had seemingly concluded that the Colorado Constitution protects even felons, at least when it comes to keeping guns at home for self-defense. The Colorado Court of Appeals had followed that precedent. But Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted its precedents as not allowing such possession by felons, except when the felons arm themselves to protect against “imminent” attack (which is very difficult, given that, by the time an attack is imminent, it may be too late to get a gun). See State v. Carbajal (Colo. June 30, 2014) (5-to-2 vote).

In Louisiana, voters in 2012 revised the state constitutional right to bear arms to read, “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” In yesterday’s State v. Eberhardt (La. July 1, 2014), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the state ban on felons’ possessing guns remains constitutional (paragraph break added):

Read the rest here:
Bad week for felons who want to have guns - The Washington Post

I'm actually rather surprised for both.

Quite a few states, and federal law, actually allow felons to regain gun rights, Louisiana happens to be one of them.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78740

Feel stupid yet? All the Supreme Court upheld was the 10 yer waiting period, not a complete ban on gun ownership by violent felons.

La. Const. art.1§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Amended by Acts 2012, No. 874, §1, approved November 6, 2012, eff. December 10, 2012.
State Constitution of 1974 > Article I:* Declaration of Rights

The Louisiana cases were argued due to the above. Ketchup:
New Orleans judge rules statute forbidding felons from having firearms unconstitutional after 'fundamental right' amendment | NOLA.com

The above is chaos.

The Louisiana Supreme Court case are two cases that were consolidated. They came from two different routes but asked the same questions. For Eberhardt, the underlying charge did not include a weapon and too many offenses fell under the felon with a firearm law and end the 10 year cleansing period (didn't even go there). Judge William Knight said something sorta-but-not really- like: Dude, you'll be keeping that gun charge.
However, and this is where it gets exciting, Judge Robert Pitre ruled that it was unconstitutional for Taylor and Stevens and quashed 'em. Quashed 'em good, too. Or not. This is not the first time that he has done this:
Marrero man convicted of killing one crack dealer and almost killing another | NOLA.com

Enter Louisiana Supreme Court: Associate Justice Jefferson Hughes III said something sorta-kinda-but-not really like: Shaddup! LSA–R.S. 14:95.1 is too constitutional. And as for your personal circumstances? Let us review--hahahahahahahaha. Srsly? Hahahahahahha. You trollin' me? Ya, Knight's decision was upheld. Taylor and Stevens was overturned. Pwned.

 

[Disir]

Supreme courts in the two states that seemed potentially most open to preserving felons’ rights to keep and bear arms — Colorado and Louisiana — have rejected such claims.

In Colorado, a past Colorado Supreme Court precedent had seemingly concluded that the Colorado Constitution protects even felons, at least when it comes to keeping guns at home for self-defense. The Colorado Court of Appeals had followed that precedent. But Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted its precedents as not allowing such possession by felons, except when the felons arm themselves to protect against “imminent” attack (which is very difficult, given that, by the time an attack is imminent, it may be too late to get a gun). See State v. Carbajal (Colo. June 30, 2014) (5-to-2 vote).

In Louisiana, voters in 2012 revised the state constitutional right to bear arms to read, “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” In yesterday’s State v. Eberhardt (La. July 1, 2014), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the state ban on felons’ possessing guns remains constitutional (paragraph break added):

Read the rest here:
Bad week for felons who want to have guns - The Washington Post

I'm actually rather surprised for both.

I'm glad. Felons have shown they have no regard for the rights of those they harmed so their rights SHOULD be curtailed.

I do too. I actually have no problem with the Louisiana 10 year cleansing.

What did you think of Hood's dissent?
2014 CO 60. No. 12SC235. People v. Carbajal. - June 30, 2014 - Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

 

[Moonglow]

I think everyone has the right to correct their past mistakes....

 

[westwall]

Read the rest here:
Bad week for felons who want to have guns - The Washington Post

I'm actually rather surprised for both.

I'm glad. Felons have shown they have no regard for the rights of those they harmed so their rights SHOULD be curtailed.

I do too. I actually have no problem with the Louisiana 10 year cleansing.

What did you think of Hood's dissent?
2014 CO 60. No. 12SC235. People v. Carbajal. - June 30, 2014 - Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

It's well reasoned but I would have to review the other decisions to get a complete feel for his dissent.

 

[westwall]

I think everyone has the right to correct their past mistakes....

Indeed they do, in most states.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Read the rest here:
Bad week for felons who want to have guns - The Washington Post

I'm actually rather surprised for both.

Quite a few states, and federal law, actually allow felons to regain gun rights, Louisiana happens to be one of them.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78740

Feel stupid yet? All the Supreme Court upheld was the 10 yer waiting period, not a complete ban on gun ownership by violent felons.

La. Const. art.1§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Amended by Acts 2012, No. 874, §1, approved November 6, 2012, eff. December 10, 2012.
State Constitution of 1974 > Article I:* Declaration of Rights

The Louisiana cases were argued due to the above. Ketchup:
New Orleans judge rules statute forbidding felons from having firearms unconstitutional after 'fundamental right' amendment | NOLA.com

The above is chaos.

The Louisiana Supreme Court case are two cases that were consolidated. They came from two different routes but asked the same questions. For Eberhardt, the underlying charge did not include a weapon and too many offenses fell under the felon with a firearm law and end the 10 year cleansing period (didn't even go there). Judge William Knight said something sorta-but-not really- like: Dude, you'll be keeping that gun charge.
However, and this is where it gets exciting, Judge Robert Pitre ruled that it was unconstitutional for Taylor and Stevens and quashed 'em. Quashed 'em good, too. Or not. This is not the first time that he has done this:
Marrero man convicted of killing one crack dealer and almost killing another | NOLA.com

Enter Louisiana Supreme Court: Associate Justice Jefferson Hughes III said something sorta-kinda-but-not really like: Shaddup! LSA–R.S. 14:95.1 is too constitutional. And as for your personal circumstances? Let us review--hahahahahahahaha. Srsly? Hahahahahahha. You trollin' me? Ya, Knight's decision was upheld. Taylor and Stevens was overturned. Pwned.

I am sure you think you made a point there. It doesn't change the fact that felons in LA can own guns ten years after they complete their sentence.

 

[Disir]

Quite a few states, and federal law, actually allow felons to regain gun rights, Louisiana happens to be one of them.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78740

Feel stupid yet? All the Supreme Court upheld was the 10 yer waiting period, not a complete ban on gun ownership by violent felons.

La. Const. art.1§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Amended by Acts 2012, No. 874, §1, approved November 6, 2012, eff. December 10, 2012.
State Constitution of 1974 > Article I:* Declaration of Rights

The Louisiana cases were argued due to the above. Ketchup:
New Orleans judge rules statute forbidding felons from having firearms unconstitutional after 'fundamental right' amendment | NOLA.com

The above is chaos.

The Louisiana Supreme Court case are two cases that were consolidated. They came from two different routes but asked the same questions. For Eberhardt, the underlying charge did not include a weapon and too many offenses fell under the felon with a firearm law and end the 10 year cleansing period (didn't even go there). Judge William Knight said something sorta-but-not really- like: Dude, you'll be keeping that gun charge.
However, and this is where it gets exciting, Judge Robert Pitre ruled that it was unconstitutional for Taylor and Stevens and quashed 'em. Quashed 'em good, too. Or not. This is not the first time that he has done this:
Marrero man convicted of killing one crack dealer and almost killing another | NOLA.com

Enter Louisiana Supreme Court: Associate Justice Jefferson Hughes III said something sorta-kinda-but-not really like: Shaddup! LSA–R.S. 14:95.1 is too constitutional. And as for your personal circumstances? Let us review--hahahahahahahaha. Srsly? Hahahahahahha. You trollin' me? Ya, Knight's decision was upheld. Taylor and Stevens was overturned. Pwned.

I am sure you think you made a point there. It doesn't change the fact that felons in LA can own guns ten years after they complete their sentence.

You want to fight?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

La. Const. art.1§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Amended by Acts 2012, No. 874, §1, approved November 6, 2012, eff. December 10, 2012.
State Constitution of 1974 > Article I:* Declaration of Rights

The Louisiana cases were argued due to the above. Ketchup:
New Orleans judge rules statute forbidding felons from having firearms unconstitutional after 'fundamental right' amendment | NOLA.com

The above is chaos.

The Louisiana Supreme Court case are two cases that were consolidated. They came from two different routes but asked the same questions. For Eberhardt, the underlying charge did not include a weapon and too many offenses fell under the felon with a firearm law and end the 10 year cleansing period (didn't even go there). Judge William Knight said something sorta-but-not really- like: Dude, you'll be keeping that gun charge.
However, and this is where it gets exciting, Judge Robert Pitre ruled that it was unconstitutional for Taylor and Stevens and quashed 'em. Quashed 'em good, too. Or not. This is not the first time that he has done this:
Marrero man convicted of killing one crack dealer and almost killing another | NOLA.com

Enter Louisiana Supreme Court: Associate Justice Jefferson Hughes III said something sorta-kinda-but-not really like: Shaddup! LSA–R.S. 14:95.1 is too constitutional. And as for your personal circumstances? Let us review--hahahahahahahaha. Srsly? Hahahahahahha. You trollin' me? Ya, Knight's decision was upheld. Taylor and Stevens was overturned. Pwned.

I am sure you think you made a point there. It doesn't change the fact that felons in LA can own guns ten years after they complete their sentence.

You want to fight?

Why would I fight an unarmed opponent?

 

[Disir]

I am sure you think you made a point there. It doesn't change the fact that felons in LA can own guns ten years after they complete their sentence.

You want to fight?

Why would I fight an unarmed opponent?

It's ok. I have both arms.

 

[whitehall]

Louisiana has always danced to the beat of a different (Cajun?) drummer but wouldn't you think Colorado would want to restrict gun ownership by felons? Maybe they are smoking their own (legal) dope these days.