Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ninth Circuit - Felon has a “right to possess a firearm for self-defense.”

On Thursday a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that Steven Duarte, a felon, has a “right to possess a firearm for self-defense.”

Courthouse News Service noted Duarte has five felony convictions and was a member of a street gang in Los Angeles.

The decision upholding Duarte’s gun rights was split, with George W. Bush appointee Carlos Bea and Donald Trump appointee Lawrence VanDyke deciding in the majority.

Bea wrote the majority opinion, noted the panel tested the prohibition against felons possessing guns in light of Bruen (2022) and found the government did not have a sufficient substantiation.

Bruen requires that gun control align with historical tradition and the intent of America’s founders. Bea and VanDyke did not believe the blanket prohibition against felons possessing firearms survived scrutiny.

Breitbart

Well, this is going to get interesting, huh.

Don't call it the Ninth Circus for nuttin'

There's a lot that article left out, such as the fact that none of his felonies were violent.

You guys be slippin…. This chit is like 30 hours old 🥴

Good

Well there goes the GCA. Poof!!

9th circuit will enbanc it next week guaranteed.

Yo Colorado! What part of Felony do you not comprehend?
Worried about your weed still?

You do the crime you do the time. Once freed they should have the same Constitutional rights as anyone else.

If they’re so dangerous that they can’t be trusted with a legal firearm (as though they can’t get an illegal one or gf/wife straw buyer) they shouldn’t be free. Being free implies the Constitutional rights of a free man.

agree, if you're too dangerous to possess a firearm you should be locked up and not on the street.

Yep

Well gents, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. There is a process for change. Stop whining and get to work.

That's the truth.

You live in New Hampshire. The land where your state Constitution doesn't even provide for or protect the right to raise a militia. Your comments always crack me up.

Five-time convicted felons, should be first-time felons shot in the commission of their crime by armed citizens.

So the ruling is both Constitutional and correct.




GR

You fit in perfectly well on the East coast.

Just making it so they can get ready to vote.

Don't spew lies. You don't know what your lying about.

You know not of which you bloviate.

You ask the Government for permission to revolt? We just kill the muthaphukers.

PS, it's State Constitution, perhaps you could get someone to read it to you.

"Shouldn't be free"...
With how fůcked-up the courts have become that's questionable now. Case in point, two n_i_gg_a_s were arrested in sagnasty for attempted armed robbery, concealed weapons violation and possession of a stolen firearm. Twenty years worth of felonies, judge Jackson gave them a year in jail on a plea bargaining deal. How soon will it be when one of these hoodrats reoffend...

Not to get in the middle of a good pissing match, but the NH State Constitution is written to avoid the ambiguity of the 'militia argument' ('we', likeminded folk, all know there isn't an argument, but those who oppose our way of life still try).
"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state"
Simple wording............

With that said, you're arguing NH's Constitution from a position of:
1. No Constitutional Carry
2. A State with Red Flag laws.

NH definitely isn't 'perfect' due to liberal implants, but our firearms laws and Constitutional protections (as ruled by NH Supremes) is well beyond that of many States.

It's an interesting position to take. On the one hand, it flows perfectly from Supreme Court cases entrenching the right to own firearms for self defense. As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, this is a great decision.

On the other hand, it removes historical loss of rights for convicted felons. Which itself is a matter fraught with moral and philosophical positions. In this thread, we have several advocates for the unrealistic "they should be locked up forever" position. I don't want to foot the bill for locking up people who don't need to be locked up because they have reformed their ways. The other side of this is that locking someone up often pushes them further into criminal networks.

The reality is that lots of people do stupid and criminal things when they are young and in many cases they "grow out of it." My father's generation saw many people given the choice between enlisting in the military or going to jail. Those people were almost all retired by the time I joined the Marines, but a few of the oldest senior enlisted and some of the mustangs still fell in that category. Other people are truly dangerous and remain criminals their entire life. If our criminal justice system is worth a [bleep], it should be able to determine the difference between these extremes. I personally see no reason why someone convicted of a felony, even a violent one, between ages 18-25, should still be denied the right to defend himself when he is 40 or 50 (assuming a clean record).

Privileges can be removed AND reinstated fairly easily as level of difficulty goes. Removing Rights not so much. We undoubtedly have inalienable Rights bestowed simply by birth. Returning an inalienable Right to a convicted felon having paid his debt is one of the not so easy to love portions of the Bill of Rights. But I have to agree with that ruling. Because another thing about Rights; they cannot be turned into privileges constitutionally. This regardless of the times our unconstitutional leaning federal government has pushed that intention.

If the courts confirm that even a felon has the right to carry a gun for self defense, that will shoot some pretty big holes in the left's belief that the 2d Amend only applies to the National guard. It will affect a lot of state and city laws. NYC can't very well allow a felon to carry a gun when the honest citizen can't.

Yes. If applied to a convicted felon it cannot logically be denied a non-felon according to this precedent setting ruling.

It is surprising this decision came out of the ninth circuit court, one of the most liberal and most overturned courts in the country. But I think it is a constitutional decision and hope to see more like it in the future.

Old retired cop here and IDGAF. I've known a bunch of folks who had a brush with the law and were decent, regular folks afterward. Probably because there were decent, regular folks before.

The real no good predatory SOBs ignored the restriction anyway and often, get their medicine from Dr. Darwin. I always figured anybody you meet is liable to be packing, so plan accordingly.

At the end of the day, the right to self defense is clearly an inalienable right. It's about the most basic and fundamental of all rights. A convicted felon doesn't deserve to die just because he once committed a crime.

Yep, not like they couldn't kill someone with a knife, hammer or bat.

So the guy failed to reported $500 in lawn mowing income on an application for a government program and never served a single day in jail for it should loose his 2nd amendment right for the rest of his life.

I'm glad we'd clarified your position and clearly established you are no friend of the second amendment.

Between 1791 and 1938 there was absolutely no law against convicts (felons) buying or possessing firearms. 145 years of history trumps 86 years. So according to Bruen the 1938 law is null and void.

In Heller SCOTUS held we have the right to keep and bear arms "for lawful purposes", not just for self defense. We want to be careful not to fall into the anti's trap of claiming we only have the right to keep arms for self defense, and therefore we have no right to "Arms suited to military purposes", like the AR-15, nor hunting rifles which don't appendix carry very well.

I'm guessing the next challenge then will be the misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and it's affect on firearm ownership...surely a violent felon is higher up the "ladder" than a "live-in" partner, leaves a mark on his/her live-in partner ?

I believe the plaintiff in this case was not a violent felon, FWIW.

one day we may all be felons in the eyes of the law

With the Democrat National Socialist/Communist Regime installed?






GR

I think more Constitutional decisions are going to be coming like Trump and me and you hope to see in the future.

Many say nuttin is bean done but I disagree.

I smell a sea change going on in Washington, DC. Several subtle signs like this have been habbening lately.

Be nice to see the end of the unconstitutional income tax.

It's Coming.

So……does that mean the felony questions on the form 4473 are going to be delet?

It's probably going to be change to "Has any court ever determined you are a violent person who presents a danger to yourself or others?", or "Have you ever been convicted of a violent felony", or something of that nature after SCOTUS rules on Rahami and the follow on lawsuits necessary to force the change.