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

[Euler]

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.

[BobPistol]

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.

[Bird76Mojo]

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?

[Flynn]

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!!!

[Harry]

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...

[Euler]

The DOJ filed its opposition brief.

[Euler]

Medina filed his reply to the DOJ's opposition.

[ChicagoRonin70]

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.

[skinnyb82]

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

 

 

[Euler]

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.

[Euler]

The Supreme Court denied the cert petition today.