Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
US District Court in Penn rules Second Amendment Protects Gun Possession by the Housemates of Felons.

Applying the aiding and abetting statute at section 2, together with the alleged violation of section 922(g)(1), under the facts of this case, implicates the protections of the Second Amendment. Were this Court to permit this Indictment to go forward, the Court would be countenancing the total elimination of the right of a sane, non-felonious citizen to possess a firearm, in her home, simply because her paramour is a felon, and not because of some affirmative act taken by the citizen. Under any level of scrutiny, said Indictment as to Huet is a substantial, if not unfettered, infringement on her Second Amendment right to keep arms.
Full text: United States vs Huet
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Sounds like a good ruling, if I'm reading it correct. Basically, don't take away the rights of one person because another person is a felon.

I wonder what other practical applications there might be for this concept. Think about it...the reason we have many of the gun restrictions that we currently have is that there are criminals who commit crimes with guns, right? So one might reasonably argue, based on this ruling, that MY rights as a law abiding gun owner should not be infringed because YOU commit a crime with a gun.

Very interesting.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,851 Posts
dunkel said:
Sounds like a good ruling, if I'm reading it correct. Basically, don't take away the rights of one person because another person is a felon.

I wonder what other practical applications there might be for this concept. Think about it...the reason we have many of the gun restrictions that we currently have is that there are criminals who commit crimes with guns, right? So one might reasonably argue, based on this ruling, that MY rights as a law abiding gun owner should not be infringed because YOU commit a crime with a gun.

Very interesting.
Well, criminals doing bad things with guns is the reason forwarded by gun-grabbers, as to why they support and pass laws infringing on citizens' 2nd Amendment Rights. But (as you know), that's not their real reason.

Anyway, I digress. As long as that's their stated reason, that's good enough concerning the law and where this goes. Your insight and analysis on this is not merely interesting, it's excellent.

Like you, I have a feeling this ruling may go a long way toward helping overturn unconstitutional firearm laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,172 Posts
Maybe there is hope after all...

Sounds like a good ruling. Let's see how long before it's overturned.


10

9

8

7

etc., etc., etc.....
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts
If the 'theory' is that because there is a felon in the house, that someone else should be denied a firearm to prevent its use by the felon then ....
... households with a felon should be prevented from voting because they might be representing the felon's vote instead of their own. (Which, may not be that far fetched, considering how many people do bother enough to vote on their own.)
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,312 Posts
This Court obviously knows something about guns and has a beef with the way the Federal prosecutors tried to portray this Yugo SKS as an assault weapon, as if that somehow made it illegal.

I have to say, this is a close case. On page 4, it says that federal agents talked to the wife, who admitted that she knew her husband had been "showing off" this particular SKS rifle to other people. She was upset about this and told him not to do it, but it seems clear to me that she did see him (or otherwise come to know) that he WAS handling her rifle, which she chose to keep handy in the closet where her husband, or anybody else in the house, could grab it easily.

So once she knows that her husband ( a convicted felon who loves guns and who got in trouble years ago for having an illegal gun) has been handling her SKS rifle (even against her wishes), did she have a duty to lock it up or otherwise put it out of his reach?

This court says "NO." She did not have a duty to deny herself access to her gun out of an ill-founded fear that one day her husband might violate the law by taking possession of it.
And the court says that if the husband took the gun, there is no evidence that this is something the wife wanted to happen, or assisted with, or tried to bring about. So this Court indicates that if a felon takes a gun from a non-felon law-abiding gun owner without that gun owner's permission, there's only one criminal-- the felon.

I'll go along with that.

But other courts might rule differently, and find that there IS a duty to take affirmative steps to keep your gun away from a felon-spouse who you know has an interest in guns and who has in the past handled your gun in violation of your verbal instructions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,593 Posts
gunsmoker said:
But other courts might rule differently, and find that there IS a duty to take affirmative steps to keep your gun away from a felon-spouse who you know has an interest in guns and who has in the past handled your gun in violation of your verbal instructions.
I could see another court ruling that way. However, SCOTUS could easily see that as establishing a "Safe Storage" provision that Heller declared unconstitutional. That Heller decision really is a pinhole in the heart of gun control logic. Some of this will take years to sort out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
dunkel said:
Think about it...the reason we have many of the gun restrictions that we currently have is that there are criminals who commit crimes with guns, right?
I lot of gun control comes from racism or a general desire to disarm the populace.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top