This is a fairly easy case to understand whether we agree with it or not. A man who was indicted on a burglary charge later attempted to purchase a handgun. In response, the feds slapped him with an additional federal charge for attempting to purchase a firearm before the outcome of his case. The judge noted that there are valid public safety concerns over his ruling; however, the Supreme Court has made it clear in recent cases that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and cannot be treated as such. The government cannot take away someone's firearm rights the same as they can't take away their other rights. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
And thus, the judge overturned 4473 line 21b. If this is upheld to the USSC, it could mean the end of "prohibited persons".
This is a big issue. I happen to believe that it is appropriate to take away gun rights in some situations before a trial. This does make sense; if it is acceptable to hold them in prison before the trial, it is acceptable to take away their gun rights while they are released on bond. But I think only in some situations. The way things are now, they are routinely and automatically taking away defendant's gun rights, regardless of the crime they are accused of, and regardless of the actual evidence that exists. The issue, as I see it, is not whether gun rights can be taken away before trial from someone accused of a felony, but what type of felony gun rights can be taken away for. Another big issue is that, if restrictions are placed on a defendant while they are released on bail, I strongly believe that violation of those restrictions should not be punished as a separate crime. The punishment for violating the conditions of bail should be that the bail is revoked and the defendant will await trial in prison, instead of being allowed continued release on bail. I cannot really see any logical reason to separately punish the defendant for doing something that would otherwise have been legal, if they had not been accused. Especially all the more so if the defendant is eventually found not guilty at trial. It should not be classified as a crime. related threads: Why should convicted felons be punished if they have a gun? Gun rights in criminal law, securing rights after conviction example #1, Felons losing their rights, Rape / domestic violence Copyrighted material online for profit now a felony, automatic lifetime loss of gun rights Former burglar was sentenced to 15 years for having gun How easily a gun owner's rights could be taken away Another federal law on the books, which many people are not aware, is that if a person is accused of a crime (under indictment), or if they are a "fugitive from justice" (knowing authorities are after them but trying to avoid capture) it automatically becomes a crime for that person to transport a gun across state lines. Even if that person has not been arrested yet. This pretty much gives a prosecutor the power to take gun rights away from anyone. Which prosecutors already have because they can put anyone in prison, but the issue is that someone would be punished for it, punished before the authorities were even able to arrest the person.
It's one thing for authorities to accuse you of a crime and then temporarily put you in prison. It's a different thing when authorities can accuse you of a crime and then threaten you with time in prison if you do something--something that falls under the category of gun rights for normal people--and impose this condition on you before they have even been physically able to capture you. Imagine for example a dystopian world where every citizen was required to where a pager outside of the house, and it was a crime for any person to leave the area if their pager started beeping, which meant the authorities were accusing that person of some crime. I think that is an analogy to this. It violates rights and civil liberties. It assumes that a person should have to trust government--with their own lives and freedom--and then be punished if they don't. People should not be punished for doing something that falls under the category of rights for normal people, before that person has even been arrested by authorities. Or before authorities have even been capable of arresting that person. This just involves more attempted control through threats. "Do what we say or you will get even more punishment after we capture you." This seems like abusive bullying tactics.
I can think of many situations where a person may deserve to go to prison, but there is not really any good reason to threaten them with more punishment if they have a gun.
If I understand it correctly, it was about being INDICTED. Any lawyer, as they say, can indict a ham sandwich.
And those who use guns to commit crimes could care less about breaking lesser offenses. If you ignore the penalty for murder, what's the point of moar laws.
Or Julian Assange in the U.K., who was sentenced to a year of prison time for not turning himself in after he had previously turned himself in and then been released on bail, even though the original charges (for which he had to post bail) had been dropped and there was no trial. (And even though it was found out that what exactly he had been accused of actually doing in the first place would probably never have been prosecuted as a crime in many countries, and likely not even in the U.K.)
Most prohibited persons have had due process of law. An indictment is not proof someone has committed a crime. It is different than someone who has been convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally incompetent
In this thread we are talking about defendants having their rights taken away before trial. But keep in mind people are convicted and punished all the time even though we are not very sure that they did the crime. A lot of people have very naive thoughts about how the process works and assume a defendant would only ever be convicted if we know they did it, and that that is the way it "should" work. But that is NOT the reality, and this belief is totally false and not very well thought out. In many cases they might prefer to punish a suspect with a few years rather than take the risk that someone in that situation might get away with a crime and go unpunished. This is totally common and routine in the justice system, and is usually where a plea bargain enters the scene. There are all sorts of situations where a suspect should be punished even though we are not sure they did the crime. Even if you personally disagree with that, that is what the majority of people will believe, if they end up serving on a jury hearing some of these cases. Considering that this is the case, it does not make sense to automatically be taking away lifelong rights from convicted persons in all cases. This is why "due process" is not necessarily always going to be sufficient justification to remove gun rights. Because "due process" does not necessarily always imply that it has been determined they almost certainly committed the crime -- that isn't actually inextricably linked to the issue of punishment like many people falsely assume. I know it is apparently difficult for many people to be able to think in terms of uncertainties. People want to think that either something is, or isn't; and assume that there must be some way to know. But that is not truly logical thought, and that is not always how things work. To repeat again, "due process" determines whether someone should be punished. It is not actually there to be able to determine whether they committed the crime, and thus that same decision (the conviction) should not be used to determine if rights should be removed from them after the punishment ends. There is a subtle but important distinction there. It is a logical fallacy to assume the two are the same exact thing. This might seem a little abstract, so I can give a few quick examples. A group of 3 people where police know at least 2 of those people committed a theft, but do not know exactly who. Likely they will all receive some punishment. Someone who is accused by another person of an assault, even though the witness either did not get a very good look at the suspect, or there is a reason to doubt that the witness can be trusted, and there is some other circumstantial evidence that suggests the suspect could have done it. To repeat again, conviction does not mean that they did the crime. We should not assume that if they should be convicted that means we know they did the crime. It is not the same thing. People with simple minds have trouble understand that, but it is intellectual laziness. When people use lazy thinking, because it's easier for them, you get injustice, things that are not fair.
Hey! If you're not dangerous enough to be behind bars then it doesn't make a lot of sense to have your rights curbed.
I would say if a felon can't be trusted with a legally owned firearm by the hell do we trust him not to have illegally owned firearms? It's pretty easy to get a firearm illegally just ride the right person to buy it from. Or break into the right house or the right car at the right time or pay somebody who has for the fire arms they stole. I actually think the right toe to firearms should be restored upon the end of the sentence. If they can't be trusted with firearms they can't be trusted in public and they need to stay in prison.
Here's another little legal fact many people are not aware of. Even if the defendant has already been arrested and being held in prison, they are not allowed to attend their own grand jury hearing or offer up any official defense at that time. It's kind of like a little pre-trial, long before the real trial--a real trial that usually never takes place due to defendants being coerced into plea bargains. So that grand jury hearing where the indictment takes place is all one-sided. There is a prosecutor and no defense.
