Jump to content


Photo

Miller v Ferguson (WA State) - Is a prohibited person in de facto custody?


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 08 October 2019 - 12:25 PM

Miller was convicted of felony assault in a jury trial in March 2012. He served 6 months in county jail and subsequently served 12 months of probation. He is now prohibited from owning and possessing firearms "under his control." His wife would like to keep a firearm in their home, but his wife also cannot do so, because any such firearm would be "under his control."

Miller contends that suspension of a person's 2nd Amendment rights is a "severe restraint on individual liberty" that constitutes custody for the purposes of habeas corpus. Previous cases have ruled that only restraint of movement (e.g., imprisonment) constitutes custody.

Washington allows convicted felons to petition for restoration of their rights after 5 years if they remain crime-free. Five years after completion of his probation was September 2018. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed this case as moot in April 2019, based on the definition of custody not being debatable, so Miller petitioned the US Supreme Court.

WA State waived its right to respond to the cert petition. The Supreme Court denied the cert petition yesterday.

It's an interesting argument, but it seems to me that it would have been a stronger case if he had made it after petitioning WA to get his rights restored and if he had failed. Otherwise the case is moot on that point alone. It also seems to me that his wife should have a stronger case, since she was not convicted of a felony.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#2 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 08 October 2019 - 03:56 PM

Oops, here's the docket, for anyone who wants to read it.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#3 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,063 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 08 October 2019 - 10:56 PM

Just another example of denying someone's rights due to the actions of another..


We're gonna have to start denying people their drivers licenses and the ability to get auto insurance and plates because their spouse got a DUI..

After that, we'll remove all matches, lighters and stoves because someone's spouse was convicted of arson..

Finally, we'll cut out the tongue of everyone in the household because a father was convicted of hate speech in New York..


Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users