right or wrong ruling... your IMO

[TAB]

Juvenile convictions can void adult gun rights

By Steve Karnowski
Associated Press
Updated: 06/02/2009 04:18:34 PM CDT

The Minnesota Court of Appeals says a man convicted of a violent crime when he was a juvenile doesn't have a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm.

Ryan Turnbull was convicted in Swift County in 2007 after a conservation officer saw him carrying a gun during hunting season in 2006. He had been found delinquent in juvenile court in 2004 of felony drive-by shooting and other charges.

Turnbull argued to the Court of Appeals his right to have a gun is protected by a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last June that affirmed the right to have guns for self-defense in the home.

But the appeals court says that ruling was "very limited" in scope.

Turnbull's attorney says he expects to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

note it said violent felony.  in this case it  was a drive by.   Thats not important, it was a violant felony.


IMO he should have been tried and treated as a adult in the 1st place.

[fightingquaker13]

note it said violent felony.  in this case it  was a drive by.   Thats not important, it was a violant felony.


IMO he should have been tried and treated as a adult in the 1st place.

To me the question is whether he had his records sealed and expunged. Rightly or wrongly, if a judge decided this, after serving his sentence and turning 18 or 21 or whatever state law specifies, he should be allowed to own a gun. However if not, he loses. In my opinion, if you commit a violent felony involving a gun, you have demonstrated you can't be trusted with one and I don't care if you were 16 and stupid. The principle though, is whether a youthful screwup can be wiped away if you comply with the courts orders, or whether statutes can later say it will follow you for life.
FQ13

[tt11758]

To me the question is whether he had his records sealed and expunged. Rightly or wrongly, if a judge decided this, after serving his sentence and turning 18 or 21 or whatever state law specifies, he should be allowed to own a gun. However if not, he loses. In my opinion, if you commit a violent felony involving a gun, you have demonstrated you can't be trusted with one and I don't care if you were 16 and stupid. The principle though, is whether a youthful screwup can be wiped away if you comply with the courts orders, or whether statutes can later say it will follow you for life.
FQ13

Although the article doesn't say so, one might assume that the records had NOT been sealed or expunged, since the conservation officer was obviously aware of them when he filed the charges.  I realize that assumptions are dangerous things, however.   

[tombogan03884]

Proper Ruling ! The way to address violent crime is by holding violent offenders accountable for their actions, not by passing more useless anti gun laws. When the Revolution comes this Judge will be on my "DO NOT HANG" list.