Tvandermyde Posted December 9, 2010 at 02:07 AM Share Posted December 9, 2010 at 02:07 AM GA_googleFillSlot("VC_GEO_728");The Second Amendment and People with Nonviolent Drug Misdemeanor ConvictionsEugene Volokh • December 8, 2010 3:13 pm In State v. Tomas (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Dec. 7), Marinko Tomas was prosecuted for violating Ohio Rev. Code. § 2923.13(A)(3):Unless relieved from disability as provided in section 2923.14 of the Revised Code, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if ... (3) The person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been an offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse. Tomas had been “convicted in 1991 of Attempted Trafficking of Marijuana, a first-degree misdemeanor.” The court applied strict scrutiny, and concluded: [T]he State has no compelling interest in prohibiting this particular defendant from possessing firearms in his place of business and home.... The evidence established that Defendant makes his home and runs his business in a dangerous violent neighborhood and to protect himself and his family [who lived on the premises of the business –EV] from the inherent violence, he keeps guns on the premises. This Court therefore narrowly holds that R.C. §2923.13 is unconstitutional when a defendant with no felony convictions, possesses firearms in his home or business, for the limited purpose of self-defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 9, 2010 at 03:42 AM Share Posted December 9, 2010 at 03:42 AM Step by step.Slowly we turn. The good news keeps on coming but patience is hard to maintain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted December 9, 2010 at 04:02 AM Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 at 04:02 AM Niagra Falls....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorpius Posted December 9, 2010 at 05:01 AM Share Posted December 9, 2010 at 05:01 AM Niagra Falls....... Haha. You beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted December 9, 2010 at 06:10 AM Share Posted December 9, 2010 at 06:10 AM Its good news and the tide is turnign but why is it necessary to mention that he lives in a dangerous area. Why not its the constitution. What if he lived in a great area, would they have ruled differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted December 9, 2010 at 11:34 AM Share Posted December 9, 2010 at 11:34 AM Its good news and the tide is turnign but why is it necessary to mention that he lives in a dangerous area. Why not its the constitution. What if he lived in a great area, would they have ruled differently? It's a more compelling argument that he lives in a "dangerous" area. It shouldn't matter, but it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted December 9, 2010 at 12:46 PM Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 at 12:46 PM judges will say or wrote what they think will help "sell" the opinion. sometimes for simple reasoning, sometimes to set up a new line of case law. they are creatures of their own and own habits. they do what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.