The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on August 28, 2009, 09:15:58 PM
-
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_23-2009_08_29.shtml#1251496843
The North Carolina Supreme Court has just held, in [1]Britt v. State,
that some felons -- whose crimes are long in the past -- do have a
constitutional right to bear arms, at least under the North Carolina
Constitution:
Plaintiff pleaded guilty to one felony count of possession with
intent to sell and deliver a controlled substance in 1979. The
State does not argue that any aspect of plaintiffâs crime involved
violence or the threat of violence. Plaintiff ompleted his sentence
without incident in 1982. Plaintiffâs right to possess firearms was
restored in 1987. No evidence has been presented which would
indicate that plaintiff is dangerous or has ever misused firearms,
either before his crime or in the seventeen years between
restoration of his rights and [the 2004] adoption of N.C.G.S. §
14-415.1âs complete ban on any possession of a firearm by him.
Plaintiff sought out advice from his local Sheriff following the
amendment of N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 and willingly gave up his weapons
when informed that possession would presumably violate the statute.
Plaintiff, through his uncontested lifelong nonviolence towards
other citizens, his thirty years of law-abiding conduct since his
crime, his seventeen years of responsible, lawful firearm
possession between 1987 and 2004, and his assiduous and proactive
compliance with the 2004 amendment, has affirmatively demonstrated
that he is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to
public peace and safety....
Based on the facts of plaintiffâs crime, his long post-conviction
history of respect for the law, the absence of any evidence of
violence by plaintiff, and the lack of any exception or possible
relief from the statuteâs operation, as applied to plaintiff, the
2004 version of N.C.G.S. § 14-451.1 is an unreasonable regulation,
not fairly related to the preservation of public peace and safety
[the constitutional test that the court was applying under the
state constitution -EV]. In particular, it is unreasonable to
assert that a nonviolent citizen who has responsibly, safely, and
legally owned and used firearms for seventeen years is in reality
so dangerous that any possession at all of a firearm would pose a
significant threat to public safety.
[Footnote moved:] Because we hold that application of N.C.G.S. §
14-415.1 to plaintiff is not a reasonable regulation, we need not
address plaintiffâs argument that the right to keep and bear arms
is a fundamental right entitled to a higher level of scrutiny.
The vote was 5-2, with four of the five Justices joining the majority
opinion and the fifth concurring in the judgment without written
opinion. Note that since this is an interpretation of the North
Carolina Constitution, the decision is final, with no basis for
further review by the U.S. Supreme Court (though of course it can be
overturned through the North Carolina constitutional amendment
process, should there be enough support for that).
Thanks to reader Steve Martin for the pointer.
References
1. http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2009/pdf/488-07-1.pdf
-
I think this sounds fair. If the crime was non-violent and time has passed (say 5 years or so) you should be able to appeal to have your rights restored. The burden of proof should be on you, but the option should be there.
FQ13
-
drugs are not a non violent felony.
More people are killed in the names of drugs then anything else.
-
drugs are not a non violent felony.
More people are killed in the names of drugs then anything else.
Bzzzt! Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. The correct answer is more people are killed as a result of prohibition than anything else. Ban beer tommorow and I will bet my AR against an autographed nude poster of Rosy O'Donnel that inside of six months someone will be shot over control of the illegal beer trade.
FQ13
-
And that makes you less responsable for that death how?
you bought the goods people died for. you didn't pull the trigger, but you gave them the reason too.
-
And that makes you less responsable for that death how?
you bought the goods people died for. you didn't pull the trigger, but you gave them the reason too.
Again, wrong answer. Government legislated unwisely by banning something they knew there would always be a demand for, a demand they knew they couldn't stop. They knew, or should have known, that this would create a black market and all that that entails.They did it anyway as either an honest but stupidly naieve view of human nature, or a cynical excersize in politics "vote for me, I hate crack and love apple pie". Sometimes you have to do it anyway, as with child porn, because real people (innocents) are being harmed. But in the case of drugs, the only victims are the addicts themselves and their families, and its not my job to tell someone how to treat their own body. Sorry TAB, if you want to drug test your employees, fine. If you avoid illegal drugs (as I do) good. But it's not the neighbors kid who lights a fatty that's responsible for the carnage in Mexico. Its the control freak politicians who think they have either the right or the ability to make him stop that get the blame.
FQ13
-
Again, wrong answer. Government legislated unwisely by banning something they knew there would always be a demand for, a demand they knew they couldn't stop. They knew, or should have known, that this would create a black market and all that that entails.They did it anyway as either an honest but stupidly naieve view of human nature, or a cynical excersize in politics "vote for me, I hate crack and love apple pie". Sometimes you have to do it anyway, as with child porn, because real people (innocents) are being harmed. But in the case of drugs, the only victims are the addicts themselves and their families, and its not my job to tell someone how to treat their own body. Sorry TAB, if you want to drug test your employees, fine. If you avoid illegal drugs (as I do) good. But it's not the neighbors kid who lights a fatty that's responsible for the carnage in Mexico. Its the control freak politicians who think they have either the right or the ability to make him stop that get the blame.
FQ13
yeah addicts only hurt themselfs and the people they love... wrong.
a very high precentage of crimes commited are done so under the influance of drugs or to get money to buy drugs.
-
Bzzzt! Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. The correct answer is more people are killed as a result of prohibition than anything else. Ban beer tommorow and I will bet my AR against an autographed nude poster of Rosy O'Donnel that inside of six months someone will be shot over control of the illegal beer trade.
FQ13
Sh!t, more like 6 HOURS, TAB is one of those people who forgets that stupid sh!t didn't work in the 20's either.
-
yeah addicts only hurt themselfs and the people they love... wrong.
a very high precentage of crimes commited are done so under the influance of drugs or to get money to buy drugs.
And this is different from booze how ? Prohibition is a money pit that makes gangsters rich while serving as a jobs program for Cops while it used to whittle away our 4th and amendment rights.
Any one who supports prohibition is stupid, or corrupt.
-
what diffrence does it make what the baned product is?
-
what diffrence does it make what the baned product is?
It doesn't, that's why the failure of the 18th amendment makes the war on some drugs such a stupid waste of taxpayer money, and why THINKING, INFORMED people oppose it as a waste and a smoke screen to infringe our rights.
-
what diffrence does it make what the baned product is?
AND THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT TAB!!!!! Ban spinach, and if people want it bad enough someone will get it to them.This goes back to the point I was trying to make in the Catholics vs guns thread. It takes an idealisticlly naieve view of human nature to think we can demonize a product (insert product name here), blame it for x, y and z ills, and then cure those ills by banning it. Remember the Comstock laws that outlawed condoms, as the idea was without contraception extra-marital and pre-marital sex would be curtailed? Its not the product, its the desire FOR the product that is to blame. Prohibition merely means that that desire will find satisfaction in a violent black market.
FQ13
-
AND THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT TAB!!!!! Ban spinach, and if people want it bad enough someone will get it to them.This goes back to the point I was trying to make in the Catholics vs guns thread. It takes an idealisticlly naieve view of human nature to think we can demonize a product (insert product name here), blame it for x, y and z ills, and then cure those ills by banning it. Remember the Comstock laws that outlawed condoms, as the idea was without contraception extra-marital and pre-marital sex would be curtailed? Its not the product, its the desire FOR the product that is to blame. Prohibition merely means that that desire will find satisfaction in a violent black market.
FQ13
Don't have a stroke FQ, ;D He's an idiot, the only real use in arguing with him is practice for when you run into a sane person. ;D
-
I'm not deamonizing a product, I'm deamonizing the user.
-
Either way you are spouting bullshit.
-
I'm not deamonizing a product, I'm deamonizing the user.
The question is why? You have to ask first is whether the government has the right, morally, to ban it to begin with. Bill Bennet (my least favorite human) put it best when when he said the war on some drugs was about a crises of authority. Eg., the government told you not to smoke that stuff and so if you do, you are a (rebel, traitor, communist, etc.). No further rationale than that. Might makes right. I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say we were living in Phils world and the state banned all handguns and you had a pre-1968 hand gun that your grandad bought from a private user in the 1940's (speaking hypothetically of course ;D). This would make it untracable. Would you turn it in? Would you feel the slightest moral qualm buying it from me? Just askin'.
FQ13
-
Would I buy it from you, no. would I trun it in, well that depends on alot of things. for a gun that I could never use with out risking big time jail time, then yes I would turn it in. if it was a slap on the wrist, then no.
a felony is not a slap on the wrist.
its like here, all the "fun" fire works are a felony( before you get all huffy about CA, AZ bans them all and NM is also very strick, one spark and we all burn) would I like to have them? yep, is it worth the risk? nope.
its all risk and reward.
-
There should be a way for EX cons to restore full rights of citizenship--voting and gun ownership included.
If they can't be trusted in society with a gun (or a knife or a car or...) they SHOULDN'T BE IN SOCIETY!!!
-
Bzzzt! Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. The correct answer is more people are killed as a result of prohibition than anything else. Ban beer tommorow and I will bet my AR against an autographed nude poster of Rosy O'Donnel that inside of six months someone will be shot over control of the illegal beer trade.
FQ13
I just threw up a little in my mouth. :o :o :o :o :o
-
The question is why? You have to ask first is whether the government has the right, morally, to ban it to begin with. Bill Bennet (my least favorite human) put it best when when he said the war on some drugs was about a crises of authority. Eg., the government told you not to smoke that stuff and so if you do, you are a (rebel, traitor, communist, etc.). No further rationale than that. Might makes right. I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say we were living in Phils world and the state banned all handguns and you had a pre-1968 hand gun that your grandad bought from a private user in the 1940's (speaking hypothetically of course ;D). This would make it untracable. Would you turn it in? Would you feel the slightest moral qualm buying it from me? Just askin'.
FQ13
I thought Sarah Palin was your least favorite human. ;D
Just giving you some crap, FQ.
-
I thought Sarah Palin was your least favorite human. ;D
Just giving you some crap, FQ.
Its a close race, but Bennet knows what he's doing. For the most part its an honest difference of opinion. He is a conservative Catholic in the Thomistic/Arisotelian pre-Vatican II mold and feels it is the states job to impose a moral order guided by religion and the individuals duty to obey. He is an unapologetic authoriarian. I'm a libertarian, never the twain shall meet. What irks me about it is his hypocrisy. While he was drug czar and slashing fundsfor treatment to hire more cops he was a recovering 2 pack a day nicotine addict whose office was reffered to as "the bird cage" because of the seasame seed shells he would spit. This is a man who would ofer moral condemnation of drug addicts (not drugs, the addicts themselves) while chewing nicoret gum, even as he cut methadone programs. Bennet is smart enough to know better. He just ddn't care.
FQ13
-
There should be a way for EX cons to restore full rights of citizenship--voting and gun ownership included.
If they can't be trusted in society with a gun (or a knife or a car or...) they SHOULDN'T BE IN SOCIETY!!!
thats great, but who determins that?
-
thats great, but who determins that?
A judge. Basically, you enter a petition, baked up by employment history, character references, proof you've been law aiding etc., and they make a ruling.
FQ13
-
thats great, but who determins that?
If you are honestly dumb enough to ask that question you will believe me when I tell you the tooth Fairy got a second job dropping off the paperwork under their pillows. And it pays better than the tooth gig does to.
-
If you are honestly dumb enough to ask that question you will believe me when I tell you the tooth Fairy got a second job dropping off the paperwork under their pillows. And it pays better than the tooth gig does to.
you completly missed the point.
-
I am under a am nasty agreement not to COMMENT. 8)
-
Should be based on just a few things, as convicted felons "legally" cannot vote either. Criteria "could" be set IF some guidelines apply.
1. NON VIOLENT OFFENSE
2. TIME SERVED
3. WHAT HAS SAID PERSON DONE SINCE #2?
4. EXTENSIVE CHARACTER REFERENCES AND JOB HISTORY
If I stole a car, and took it for a joyride because I was a stupid 19 year old, was convicted of "Grand Theft Auto", served my time, got out, GREW UP, have had NO other infractions of the law, now that I'm forty, I should be denied possession of a firearm?
I can see issuance of a CCW, but a blanket prohibition should be looked at case by case...
IMHO.