Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

Firearms Legal Protection

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Mask free in the gunshine state!
    Posts
    20,586

    Taking the Second Amendment Seriously

    Another Case for Taking the Second Amendment Seriously

    By Ilya Shapiro & Matthew Larosiere
    The Cato Institute
    May 9th. 2018

    Over a decade ago, Rickey Kanter’s company, Dr. Comfort, shipped diabetic shoe inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Dr. Comfort sold the inserts as being Medicare-approved, but they were not. Because of these events, Kanter, to this day, cannot legally own a gun.

    U.S. and Wisconsin law prohibit anyone convicted of a crime “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from possessing any firearm or ammunition. In 2011, Kanter pled guilty to a single count of mail fraud for Dr. Comfort’s 2006 delivery of non-compliant shoe inserts to a podiatrist. Kanter has no other criminal convictions, is not under indictment, or a fugitive from justice, or an unlawful user of any controlled substance.

    He has not been judged mentally defective, been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, renounced his citizenship, or been the subject of a restraining order relating to an intimate partner. In fact, Kanter has no history of any violent behavior at all.

    So he brought suit in federal court, arguing that the categorical prohibition of firearms possession by felons was unconstitutional as applied to him: a non-violent, one-time offender. The district court sided with the government, which argued that a permanent revocation of Second Amendment rights for all felonies—no matter how serious or remote in time—passes constitutional muster.

    The court paid lip service to Kanter’s Second Amendment rights, finding that the commission of any felony shows that he “clearly disrespected important laws in the past,” which justifies completely stripping him of his rights. Kanter appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

    Because fundamental rights cannot be so summarily disregarded, Cato filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting Kanter. The scope of what is considered a felony has changed dramatically in recent decades, with more and more minor offenses carrying criminal penalties. This poses a serious concern where the government does not distinguish terrorism and armed robbery from falsification of fishing records or Martha Stewart’s infamous white lies in stripping a person of fundamental rights.

    The district court was motivated by efficiency of administration—that simply treating all felons the same makes it easier for the government—and by a broad conception of legislative power to “establish certain ‘categorical disqualifications’” to the rights of the people. We disagree. Where any constitutional rights are at stake, courts must engage in meaningful review—especially of individualized challenges to such broad and overreaching laws. If the government wants to strip an individual of his rights, it must demonstrate, with actual evidence, that the deprivation survives an exacting level of scrutiny.

    Falsely advertising a shoe insert may not be admirable conduct, but arguing that doing so means that a person should not be able to defend himself with a gun seems like shooting from the hip.

  2. #2
    Legal Forum Contributor / Super Moderator Shyster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wixom
    Posts
    9,194
    In Dallas last week at the Annual Firearms Law Seminar the subject of challenging GCA prohibitions was discussed. There IS hope for those federally prohibited from owning firearms and who are not eligible for an expungement. Going to write it up and start offering the service. It will NOT be cheap as it involves filing a Federal civil suit.
    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners. Any opinion I express on an issue should not be considered legal advice.

    For those interested in establishing an NFA or Gun Trust click here. For my contact information click here. Follow me on Twitter @makowskilegal or my website www.makowskilegal.com

  3. #3
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lake Odessa
    Posts
    1,613
    Just saw this one, too. http://jpfo.org/articles-2018/some-f...JHxh5cFUJ_Zn_P

    On 26 April, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois held that some felons have the right to keep and bear arms. Larry Hatfield was a perfect test case. From reason.com, Hatfield v. Session (formerly Hatfield v. Lynch)
    No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
    William Rawle - offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington

  4. #4
    MGO Board of Directors

    Trustee


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Now far south of the city: FAR.
    Posts
    11,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyster View Post
    In Dallas last week at the Annual Firearms Law Seminar the subject of challenging GCA prohibitions was discussed. There IS hope for those federally prohibited from owning firearms and who are not eligible for an expungement. Going to write it up and start offering the service. It will NOT be cheap as it involves filing a Federal civil suit.
    Speaking of Dallas and the NRA meeting...
    with all those armed people and assault weapons on the show floor, there must have been a huge number of murders and accidents, right?
    I mean, guns are the problem and we need to ban them, so surely there must have been at least 2 or 3 mass shootings...
    i even saw video of some monstrous people letting a little kid play with an assault bolt rifle!
    DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, DrScaryGuy. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of MGO, its board of directors, or its members.

  5. #5
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lake Odessa
    Posts
    1,613
    Quote Originally Posted by DrScaryGuy View Post
    Speaking of Dallas and the NRA meeting...
    with all those armed people and assault weapons on the show floor, there must have been a huge number of murders and accidents, right?
    I mean, guns are the problem and we need to ban them, so surely there must have been at least 2 or 3 mass shootings...
    i even saw video of some monstrous people letting a little kid play with an assault bolt rifle!
    No, no, no. I read on the interwebz that guns were banned at the NRA convention.
    No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
    William Rawle - offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington

  6. #6
    Legal Forum Contributor / Super Moderator Shyster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wixom
    Posts
    9,194
    Quote Originally Posted by DrScaryGuy View Post
    Speaking of Dallas and the NRA meeting...
    with all those armed people and assault weapons on the show floor, there must have been a huge number of murders and accidents, right?
    I mean, guns are the problem and we need to ban them, so surely there must have been at least 2 or 3 mass shootings...
    i even saw video of some monstrous people letting a little kid play with an assault bolt rifle!
    I spent much of my time searching for a safe space so I could color.
    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners. Any opinion I express on an issue should not be considered legal advice.

    For those interested in establishing an NFA or Gun Trust click here. For my contact information click here. Follow me on Twitter @makowskilegal or my website www.makowskilegal.com

  7. #7
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyster View Post
    I spent much of my time searching for a safe space so I could color.
    I find that offensive. Buy me a puppy.

  8. #8
    In Memoriam Kaeto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    2,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyster View Post
    I spent much of my time searching for a safe space so I could color.
    But you colored outside the lines!
    “The path of the warrior is difficult!
    We live to protect those who cannot protect themselves!
    Honor in serving!
    Honor in defending!
    Honor in dying for a just cause!”

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter