Huge Victory For Gun Rights

[Clarence]

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ( Philadelphia) has ruled that nonviolent felons cannot be denied their 2nd Amendment rights.  11-4

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-cannot-disarm-people-convicted-non-violent-crimes-appeals-court-2023-06-06/

This is a big win in a heretofore anti-gun court thanks to the Bruen decision.

Millions of citizens will no longer be denied their right because of non violent crimes years ago. 

One beneficiary of this might  be Hunter Biden as charges against him are being contemplated as a drug user in possession. It’s hilarious that his lawyers would use a Supreme Court decision (Bruen)that his father said  “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution” to save his precious sonny boy.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/hunter-biden-supreme-court-second-amendment-00099544

[Oaklandopen]

I think they were already going to claim 2A doesn't cover drug usage if they do end up trying to hold him to that.  Such a lose lose for Joe and his anti gun shenanigans. 

[Just Bill]

Not sure about that, they are non-violent until they aren't???  Then they let them go anyhow?

[Clarence]

So many laws are now felonies that the term has actually lost its meaning.  There are people denied purchase of a firearm for marijuana possession 50 years ago.  There was a case that was upheld (pre Bruen) of a guy denied a firearm for life because he was caught making bootleg cassette tapes 40 years ago.

Everyone wants to keep firearms out of the hands of the truly dangerous but lifetime bans for a constitutional right for some pot or other non violent offenses after the debt has been paid is ridiculous and wrong

Another example: In Virginia 20 miles over the speed limit is reckless  Driving.  Used to be classed as felony.

[MarcWinkman]

This is a lot more nuanced than it appears.  The offense for which Range was convicted is a PA state misdemeanor of the first degree meaning it carries a maximum penalty of more than one year in prison (if I recall correctly, the statute calls for up to four years).  It is a non-violent offense, but not at the felony level under PA statutes.  How this will affect non-violent FELONIES, however, remains to be seen.  It would certainly be worth looking at the full opinion on the Third Circuit's website. 

With respect to what impact this will have on drug offenses, that's anyone's guess.  Under Title 16 of the Delaware Code, there are both violent and non-violent drug offenses.  A lot of the differentiation comes down to what the particular drug is and whether it meets a specific tier weight requirement under the Statutory guidelines.

[Clarence]

Mark.  Thanks for your input.  I believe the Federal 1968 GCA actually bans felons and any crime PUNISHABLE by more than 1 year or in the case of state misdemeanors punishable by 2 years. Many states including PA have misdemeanors that have a maximum penalty of 4 or 5 years. Looks like these that do not involve violence would be covered

In that the scope of what is a felony has been greatly expanded it seem that there will have to be a limit at some point before a constitutional right can be taken for life. Otherwise a state could theoretically make a parking violation a felony and remove your rights.

Correct me if I am wrong Mark, but because this is an enbanc decision from the  appeals court the only appeal from the government would be to the US Supreme Court and if upheld or not accepted would become law nationwide.

[MarcWinkman]

There is a slippery slope with the classification of what is a felony that will result in the lifetime ban, and that is something that is mentioned in dicta in the opinion and its concurrences.  I will note for everyone though, that under Delaware law, if you are convicted of a violent misdemeanor, a domestic violence misdemeanor, or a drug misdemeanor, you are a person prohibited for 5 years from the date of conviction. 

As for the Government's appeal rights, you are correct.  Since this is an en banc opinion, the only appeal that the Government could take from this is upon writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court. 

Though this is a narrow decision of the court, it is a precedental decision and it is one that will certainly be a good guidepost for future 2A litigation in jurisdictions covered by the Third Circuit (i.e. DE, PA, and NJ).

[MarcWinkman]

Here's one out of the Southern District of Mississippi dismissing a Felon in Possession charge that was brought under 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g).

[MarcWinkman]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/22-00915qp.pdf

Here's one that's upcoming for the October term to decide whether under Bruen there is a historical basis for disarming individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

[Clarence]

Thanks Mark.   One observation is couldn’t have picked a worse plaintiff. Multiple assaults etc. 

[Oaklandopen]

Yea the guy is a complete turd of a human.  But I would defend the fact that accusal doesn't equal conviction.  If that's the case watch the red flag laws get even worse

[Clarence]

Yea the guy is a complete turd of a human.  But I would defend the fact that accusal doesn't equal conviction.  If that's the case watch the red flag laws get even worse

100% Agree

[MarcWinkman]

Yea the guy is a complete turd of a human.  But I would defend the fact that accusal doesn't equal conviction.  If that's the case watch the red flag laws get even worse

He is indeed about the worst plaintiff that one could pick for this case.  We'll have to wait with bated breath to see what happens.