Jump to content


Photo

Medina v Barr - Should felons get their 2A rights back?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Euler

    Member

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

Posted 05 October 2019 - 02:26 AM

docket

Nearly thirty years ago, Jorge Medina was convicted of one felony count of making a false statement to a lending institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014.

Medina was not imprisoned. The bank sustained no loss, and would resume doing business with him. Medina is a successful entrepreneur and family man, with no record of violence. Yet on account of his single false statement conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) permanently bars Medina's possession of firearms.

The Third, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits hold that individuals convicted of felonies may challenge the application of firearm dispossession laws under the Second Amendment, although the basis for such challenges remains disputed. The First, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have expressed openness to such challenges, while the Fourth and Tenth Circuits bar them. The D.C. Circuit below reiterated that as-applied challenges to felony firearm dispossession laws are theoretically possible, but rejected Medina's claim for such relief.

The question presented is:

Whether the Second Amendment secures Jorge Medina's right to possess arms, notwithstanding his conviction for making a false statement to a lending institution 29 years ago.


Edited by Euler, 05 October 2019 - 02:27 AM.

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 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,194 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 05 October 2019 - 11:43 AM

I personally believe if the felony was not violent, then the person should be able to get their 2A rights back after, say 5 years or so.  

 

This is a good case for 2A. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#3 Bird76Mojo

    Member

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

Posted 05 October 2019 - 04:23 PM

A standard definitely needs to be put in place where ALL citizens have the option to reinstate their rights to own firearms. Otherwise, what's to stop gun grabbing politicians from passing certain laws that make the smallest of victim-less crimes a felony in order to barr someone from possessing a firearm legally?


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


#4 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,233 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 05 October 2019 - 04:44 PM

Otherwise, what's to stop gun grabbing politicians from passing certain laws that make the smallest of victim-less crimes a felony in order to barr someone from possessing a firearm legally?

 

They already are doing that!!!


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#5 Harry

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 60 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 14

Posted 05 October 2019 - 04:57 PM

I think from the time the felon is released from prison, the stigma of his incarceration follows him or her for the rest of their life. Getting a good job is difficult if not impossible. Some will give up and continue their criminal behavior. If they are allowed to vote, they will regain their national pride and possibly turn their lives around. After all, they paid for their crimes. If convicted for a second violation they will be barred from voting for life. Just my opinion...

#6 Euler

    Member

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

Posted 05 November 2019 - 04:57 PM

The DOJ filed its opposition brief.
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.


#7 Euler

    Member

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

Posted 18 November 2019 - 03:16 PM

Medina filed his reply to the DOJ's opposition.
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.


#8 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 18 November 2019 - 07:22 PM

My thoughts on this is that if an individual is deemed too dangerous to society to have their full rights available to them, including voting and firearms ownership, then perhaps they should be kept incarcerated until such time as it is determined that they are no longer a danger to society.

 

That would serve to alleviate the repression of rights and to make sure that society is kept safe from those deemed to be a criminal danger to it.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#9 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 November 2019 - 06:35 AM

If they're so damn dangerous then why do we even let them out of prison? "This guy is a menace to society but parole granted!" It boggles the mind. And if someone IS NOT a danger to society then I see no problem with them owning a gun or voting. Ignorant voters are, however, more dangerous to society than any gun owner with malicious intent. Can kill 5 people with a gun but can vote a totalitarian dictator into power who will kill millions. Right to vote is one of the most dangerous (if misused) rights that we have. Far more than RKBA. Maybe not quite as much as free expression, since "journalists" have done FAR more damage to this country than some criminals with guns. Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#10 Euler

    Member

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

Posted 09 December 2019 - 12:45 PM

If they're so damn dangerous then why do we even let them out of prison? ...


Medina wasn't violent. He never did prison time.
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.


#11 Euler

    Member

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

Posted 09 December 2019 - 12:45 PM

The Supreme Court denied the cert petition today.
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.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users