Missouri judge contradicts federal law. Says non-violent felons can have guns

ShootSpeeders

Gold Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
20,232
Reaction score
2,344
Points
280
According to federal law, ANY felony, even mickey mouse ones for tax evasion or pot use means you can NEVER have a gun!! Most people think it's not fair to lose a constitutional right for such minor crimes.

St. Louis judge tosses out gun case citing newly-enacted Amendment 5 News

feb 28 2015
ST. LOUIS • A judge here dismissed a firearm possession charge Friday, ruling that a convicted felon was within his rights to be armed under a Missouri Constitutional amendment passed last year.

The sponsor of the measure said the decision was a subversion of the intent of Amendment 5, which garnered 60 percent of the vote in the August election.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Robert Dierker ruled that the Missouri law prohibiting felons from possessing guns is unconstitutional as applied in the case of Raymond Robinson, in part because it fails to differentiate between violent and non-violent felons.

The amendment declares the right to keep and bear arms “unalienable” and subjects laws restricting gun rights to “strict scrutiny.”

Dierker limited his decision to the circumstances of Robinson’s situation; it is not binding on other cases. It also has no effect on a federal law prohibiting felons from possession guns.
 
OP
ShootSpeeders

ShootSpeeders

Gold Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
20,232
Reaction score
2,344
Points
280
Dangerous monsters like pete rose and martha stewart have minor non-violent felonies on their record and are barred by federal law from having guns. Lots of americans do. Congress keeps classifying more and more activities as felonies.
 
OP
ShootSpeeders

ShootSpeeders

Gold Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
20,232
Reaction score
2,344
Points
280
The definition of a felony is - Any crime for which the maximum POSSIBLE incarceration exceeds one year. That's a very low bar. Thousands of americans have been convicted of felonies and got probation or a suspended sentence and never did a day of prison time.
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,603
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
Only those who are found guilty of violent crimes should not be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights.
 
OP
ShootSpeeders

ShootSpeeders

Gold Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
20,232
Reaction score
2,344
Points
280
Only those who are found guilty of violent crimes should not be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights.
It's crazy. Even people merely INDICTED for a felony lose their gun rights!! I think once you're out of prison, gun rights should be restored. Even for those convicted of murder.
 

Preacher

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
29,641
Reaction score
5,905
Points
290
Location
Georgia Mountains
Good. That stupid ignorant law affects me...Stupidest damn thing I have ever had to deal with...especially when the state doesn't mind if I have one but fed gov does.
 

Nutz

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
14,814
Reaction score
1,809
Points
265
Only those who are found guilty of violent crimes should not be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights.
No one should have their constitutional rights abridged.
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,603
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
Only those who are found guilty of violent crimes should not be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights.
No one should have their constitutional rights abridged.
I stick to what I said but with a caveat. Government can and does trump up charges against citizens and forces them to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid incarceration, so I could be convinced to agree with you to a degree.
 

Nutz

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
14,814
Reaction score
1,809
Points
265
Only those who are found guilty of violent crimes should not be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights.
No one should have their constitutional rights abridged.
I stick to what I said but with a caveat. Government can and does trump up charges against citizens and forces them to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid incarceration, so I could be convinced to agree with you to a degree.
Either everyone has the ability to protect themselves or nobody. A person goes to prison and serves their time. They shouldn't lose their rights or citizenship once they repay their debt to society. And if you are a purist of the Constitution, where does it say felons cannot own a gun.

As for violent criminals...they should be spending the majority of their lives in jail anyhow.
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,603
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
Only those who are found guilty of violent crimes should not be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights.
No one should have their constitutional rights abridged.
I stick to what I said but with a caveat. Government can and does trump up charges against citizens and forces them to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid incarceration, so I could be convinced to agree with you to a degree.
Either everyone has the ability to protect themselves or nobody. A person goes to prison and serves their time. They shouldn't lose their rights or citizenship once they repay their debt to society. And if you are a purist of the Constitution, where does it say felons cannot own a gun.

As for violent criminals...they should be spending the majority of their lives in jail anyhow.
Well, that would be the answer but that is often not the case.
 

Nutz

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
14,814
Reaction score
1,809
Points
265
Only those who are found guilty of violent crimes should not be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights.
No one should have their constitutional rights abridged.
I stick to what I said but with a caveat. Government can and does trump up charges against citizens and forces them to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid incarceration, so I could be convinced to agree with you to a degree.
Either everyone has the ability to protect themselves or nobody. A person goes to prison and serves their time. They shouldn't lose their rights or citizenship once they repay their debt to society. And if you are a purist of the Constitution, where does it say felons cannot own a gun.

As for violent criminals...they should be spending the majority of their lives in jail anyhow.
Well, that would be the answer but that is often not the case.
Again...they serve their time, they are free. Now if it is probation or parole...then they can't own a gun while on parole. Otherwise...time served.

Not enough space to keep them incarcerated, let out non-violent offenders who are doing enormous amounts of time for drugs.
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,603
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
Only those who are found guilty of violent crimes should not be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights.
No one should have their constitutional rights abridged.
I stick to what I said but with a caveat. Government can and does trump up charges against citizens and forces them to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid incarceration, so I could be convinced to agree with you to a degree.
Either everyone has the ability to protect themselves or nobody. A person goes to prison and serves their time. They shouldn't lose their rights or citizenship once they repay their debt to society. And if you are a purist of the Constitution, where does it say felons cannot own a gun.

As for violent criminals...they should be spending the majority of their lives in jail anyhow.
Well, that would be the answer but that is often not the case.
Again...they serve their time, they are free. Now if it is probation or parole...then they can't own a gun while on parole. Otherwise...time served.

Not enough space to keep them incarcerated, let out non-violent offenders who are doing enormous amounts of time for drugs.
Agreed, but the non-violent offenders aren't the ones being let out.
 

Nutz

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
14,814
Reaction score
1,809
Points
265
No one should have their constitutional rights abridged.
I stick to what I said but with a caveat. Government can and does trump up charges against citizens and forces them to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid incarceration, so I could be convinced to agree with you to a degree.
Either everyone has the ability to protect themselves or nobody. A person goes to prison and serves their time. They shouldn't lose their rights or citizenship once they repay their debt to society. And if you are a purist of the Constitution, where does it say felons cannot own a gun.

As for violent criminals...they should be spending the majority of their lives in jail anyhow.
Well, that would be the answer but that is often not the case.
Again...they serve their time, they are free. Now if it is probation or parole...then they can't own a gun while on parole. Otherwise...time served.

Not enough space to keep them incarcerated, let out non-violent offenders who are doing enormous amounts of time for drugs.
Agreed, but the non-violent offenders aren't the ones being let out.
I wonder why.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top