The Supreme Court has accepted a case relating to the gun rights of felons.
The question is, what happens to the firearms owned by people who become felons, assuming the firearms were not used in a crime? Can the government simply seize them, as they have in some cases, or can they facilitate the transfer of control and possession to a third party who sells them and remits the money to the owner, as they have in others?
There have been some really ugly cases where BATFE has gotten gun dealers convicted for something or other, and then used that as a basis for seizing all the firearms in the store. Maybe that will end.
funny they stick up for felons, but are ignoring the fugging honest Citizens are getting with homo marriage, obamacare, gun control.....................
This could get interesting and ugly. It's very odd that they take this one instead of the pending and having been pended concealed carry cases. I don't like the smell of this at all.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
funny they stick up for felons, but are ignoring the fugging honest Citizens are getting with homo marriage, obamacare, gun control.....................
Re: "homo marriage" - read Loving v. Virginia. That case law is settled. The easiest fix is to get .gov out of the marriage business altogether.
ObamaCare, the SCOTUS sold out to .gov and created a tax where there was none legislatively and none argued. That goes against their authorization and shows that the entire bench has sold out to .gov as a ruling elite.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Not sure why the po po are entitled to private property if it wasn't related to the crime? Sure, a felon can't possess a firearm, but he should be allowed to divest himself of it and be compensated.
For example, a doctor who commits a crime that causes the loss of his medical license should still be able to sell his practice or clinic.
Conrad101st 1/503 Inf., 2nd ID (90-91) 3/327 Inf., 101st ABN (91-92)
funny they stick up for felons, but are ignoring the fugging honest Citizens are getting with homo marriage, obamacare, gun control.....................
Re: "homo marriage" - read Loving v. Virginia. That case law is settled. The easiest fix is to get .gov out of the marriage business altogether.
ObamaCare, the SCOTUS sold out to .gov and created a tax where there was none legislatively and none argued. That goes against their authorization and shows that the entire bench has sold out to .gov as a ruling elite.
I concur.
Government needs to be out of the marriage business as well as follow the law about staying out of the religious business too.
This is their way of "throwing us a bone" so they don't have to take a real gun case.
Ha, I wouldn't count on anything. It's one of those weird cases where you might be surprised who votes for what. For example some justices are obviously pro gun but they also might be super pro cop and hardly met a search or seizure that went too far. You might find liberal justices who hate guns still voting to reign in forfeiture laws that have gone too far. It's an odd mix of issues on this one.
Conrad101st 1/503 Inf., 2nd ID (90-91) 3/327 Inf., 101st ABN (91-92)
This is their way of "throwing us a bone" so they don't have to take a real gun case.
Ha, I wouldn't count on anything. It's one of those weird cases where you might be surprised who votes for what. For example some justices are obviously pro gun but they also might be super pro cop and hardly met a search or seizure that went too far. You might find liberal justices who hate guns still voting to reign in forfeiture laws that have gone too far. It's an odd mix of issues on this one.
Could be, but I wouldn't trust Ruth Ginsburg at all on a gun-related case even though she is famous for civil liberties issues. Can't say I know her, but she worked at my law school when I was there, years ago. Smart, but opinionated.
Norman Solberg International lawyer, lately for 25 years in Japan, now working on trusts in the US, the 3rd greatest tax haven. NRA Life Member for over 50 years, NRA Endowment (2014), Patron (2016).
Not sure why the po po are entitled to private property if it wasn't related to the crime? Sure, a felon can't possess a firearm, but he should be allowed to divest himself of it and be compensated.
For example, a doctor who commits a crime that causes the loss of his medical license should still be able to sell his practice or clinic.
actually been interesting listening to this guy most weeks, covers a whole range of topics....
A serious student of the "Armchair Safari" always looking for Africa/Asia hunting books
funny they stick up for felons, but are ignoring the fugging honest Citizens are getting with homo marriage, obamacare, gun control.....................
Re: "homo marriage" - read Loving v. Virginia. That case law is settled. The easiest fix is to get .gov out of the marriage business altogether.
ObamaCare, the SCOTUS sold out to .gov and created a tax where there was none legislatively and none argued. That goes against their authorization and shows that the entire bench has sold out to .gov as a ruling elite.
Loving is no authority whatsoever in favor of the proposition that sodomites should have a constitutional right to marry. The law is not settled in this area---at least not in favor of sodomite marriage. Quite the opposite.
Last edited by RobJordan; 10/20/14.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
ObamaCare, the SCOTUS sold out to .gov and created a tax where there was none legislatively and none argued. That goes against their authorization and shows that the entire bench has sold out to .gov as a ruling elite.
That...
I hope he wins, but I'd say the odds are 60/40 against... Thanks for the link and post, Denton.. I know this will take a while to get a ruling so please keep us informed of the progress and results.
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
This could get interesting and ugly. It's very odd that they take this one instead of the pending and having been pended concealed carry cases. I don't like the smell of this at all.
Yeah, my observation also.
It's like this...Titulary ownership for felons...who cares?
Concealed carry for non-felons; EVERYONE cares!!
So they take the former instead of the latter. Roberts is a douche.
I'm guessing this will go at least 7-2 in favor of allowing the plaintiff to have the FBI deliver his firearms to the buyer since there's no question here of physical possession of the firearms being given to the felon.
Hopefully this will also provide a basis to stop future cases where cops seize firearms and then refuse to return them at all or unless you can show an original receipt or bill of sale (happens more than you know). At a minimum it should help settle the question of whether new felons/domestic violence/etc can sell their possessions rather than have them confiscated by gov.
Baby steps. Every decision in our favor helps build a base for future cases.
Quote
The Supreme Court is taking up a case that pits property rights against firearm regulations, with the justices poised to decide what becomes of a person's guns after they are convicted of a crime.
The case, Henderson v. United States, is among three new cases the high court has agreed to hear this term, according to orders handed down Monday.
It centers on Tony Henderson, a former U.S. Border Patrol agent who was charged with selling marijuana in 2006, and later convicted of a felony.
Federal law prohibits felons from possessing firearms, and Henderson turned 15 personal weapons over to the FBI while his case was pending.
Two years later, he submitted a bill of sale to the FBI, indicating that he had sold the guns to another man and asked the FBI to transfer them accordingly. The government refused, reasoning that doing so would amount to granting �constructive possession� of the guns to Henderson.
While lower courts are split on the issue, the government argues that its position is validated by a decision in a federal court decision in a case known as United States v. Howell, which found convicted felons have �unclean hands� and therefore no right to control over previously owned firearms.
�Requiring a court to return firearms to a convicted felon would not only be in violation of a federal law, but would be contrary to the public policy behind the law,� that court argued.
But Henderson says the weapons had nothing to do with his crime.
By denying his sale of the guns, the government is trampling on his property rights, his lawyers argued in a petition seeking Supreme Court review of the case.
�It allows the government � based on a statutory prohibition on mere possession � to bypass formal forfeiture procedures and effectively strip gun owners of their entire ownership interest in significant, lawful household assets following a conviction for an unrelated offense,� petitioners say.
Last edited by Calhoun; 10/21/14.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
Been sayin' that ever since O-care got decided... The damn fool...
+2 Ya can't trust any of the Gobermint with our Constitutional rights. 1st felon tat commits a crime with a legally purchased firearm will be another attack on the law abiding.
