MNGunTalk.com

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down a major ruling in favor of the Second Amendment rights of ex-felons. At issue was the federal “felon-in-possession” law—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which bars ex-felons from possession of firearms. While it is always risky to bet on granting of review before the Supreme Court, this en banc decision is well positioned for a Supreme Court showdown over the Second Amendment.

[...]

In this case, Bryan David Range pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps. He later explained that he was earning between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour to support his wife and three young children on $300 per week. Range’s wife applied for food stamps but understated Range’s income, which she and Range signed. Range later took responsibility for the misrepresentation.

Range received three years’ probation (which he completed) and had to pay thousands in fines. However, when Range pleaded guilty in 1995, his conviction was classified as a Pennsylvania misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. That triggered the federal ban. When his wife recently bought him a deer-hunting rifle, he learned that he was barred under federal law. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter ruled against him.

jdege wrote:https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/07/locked-and-loaded-third-circuit-declares-federal-gun-law-unconstitutional-over-ex-felon-rights/
Locked and Loaded: Third Circuit Declares Federal Gun Law Unconstitutional Over Ex-Felon Rights

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down a major ruling in favor of the Second Amendment rights of ex-felons. At issue was the federal “felon-in-possession” law—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which bars ex-felons from possession of firearms. While it is always risky to bet on granting of review before the Supreme Court, this en banc decision is well positioned for a Supreme Court showdown over the Second Amendment.

[...]

In this case, Bryan David Range pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps. He later explained that he was earning between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour to support his wife and three young children on $300 per week. Range’s wife applied for food stamps but understated Range’s income, which she and Range signed. Range later took responsibility for the misrepresentation.

Range received three years’ probation (which he completed) and had to pay thousands in fines. However, when Range pleaded guilty in 1995, his conviction was classified as a Pennsylvania misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. That triggered the federal ban. When his wife recently bought him a deer-hunting rifle, he learned that he was barred under federal law. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter ruled against him.

bstrawse wrote:At present, the decision pertains only to him.

The lawyers in the case are the same lawyers the Caucus uses for federal litigation.

Bryan

Grayskies wrote:

bstrawse wrote:At present, the decision pertains only to him.

The lawyers in the case are the same lawyers the Caucus uses for federal litigation.

Bryan

This comes across to me as; How much rights can a person afford, can you live long enough to win, and is winning even possible. Let's make it as expensive as possible and delay the outcome for as long as possible as they pass new unconstitutional laws so they can start litigation all over again. They help themselves to our tax dollars having unlimited funds while normal people have issues affording egg.

Grayskies wrote:How many will die or be injured as we spend mountains of cash with lawyers, as lawyers, judges and politian’s (mostly lawyers) play these games?

Chess is a game. Debate in court of fundamental enumerated rights is not a game, and while lawyers get rich and powerful playing these games, peoples lives get ended and destroyed.

Perhaps when people treat these as a matter of life and death, and stop treating it as a game, things will change?

bstrawse wrote:

Grayskies wrote:How many will die or be injured as we spend mountains of cash with lawyers, as lawyers, judges and politian’s (mostly lawyers) play these games?

Chess is a game. Debate in court of fundamental enumerated rights is not a game, and while lawyers get rich and powerful playing these games, peoples lives get ended and destroyed.

Perhaps when people treat these as a matter of life and death, and stop treating it as a game, things will change?

I don't think of this as a game - but I'm giving you the reality of the world we live in right now. We can't just walk into court and say "shall not be infringed" and win - as much as I wish we could.