Related Articles
The gun possession conviction of a man prohibited by law from having one has been upheld. From The Salt Lake Tribune:
Danny Dutton, 24, contended that he began receiving threats the day after he shot and killed a violent intruder at his apartment.
Because of a 2004 felony conviction for cultivating marijuana, Dutton is prohibited from possessing firearms. He argued, though, that his only realistic option was to carry a gun to protect himself.
Being beaten with a metal pipe in your own apartment can change your outlook on likely threat levels. But the police, a U.S. District Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, all of which operate under protection of state-deployed arms, disagreed, and in their guarded wisdom concluded Mr. Dutton did not possess a life worthy of also possessing the means of self-defense.
In order to come to this conclusion, they must resort to nothing short of fortune telling, because there are no empirical standards by which they can otherwise reach it. If anything, Dutton would appear to live on the fringes of a higher-risk segment than most. A man--who had already been bludgeoned in his own home--felt he knew his own situation well enough to warrant storing his possessions and changing his appearance. But officials who are not at risk presume to know best how scared he should be.
It's the same mentality, really, that denies concealed carry permits in "may issue" states because of insufficient "cause."
Ah, but I'm forgetting something--Mr. Dutton is a prohibited person. We don't want criminals to have guns, do we?
Assuming nothing comes up that pushes it to a back burner, we'll examine that in tomorrow's column.
Comments
Laws that attempt to pre-emptively prohibit the abuse of a right also deny any righteous exercise of the right as well.
Laws prohibiting the possession of arms to try and prevent crime are like duct taping everyone's mouth that walks into a theater because someone may falsely yell "FIRE!" It also means nobody can yell fire if there really was one.
Unfortunately when even the NRA (those compromising sell-out bastards) supports prohibiting felons and other "prohibited persons" from possessing arms, it's a rediculously uphill battle. Let's just hope at some level the courts can actually uphold the Constitution.
Well put David, what is the best option? As you know by now I am a pro-legalization of marijuana- and it is my personal opinion that drug related cases are farces of justice generally speaking. There are some that are specifically necessary...however, not all. This man should never have been charged as a felon and should be allowed to carry AS LONG as he is no longer involved in that world- if he is still involved in that world than he deserves to be in trouble, after all you are who you hang out with!
How ridiculous and absurd. The law prohibiting felons to own guns. Lets look at the reality; Do the gang-bangers, burgalers, rapists, thieves, car jackers, bank robbers, mobsters, and no telling how many other types serving time or recently paroled who have no intentions of becoming productive members of society care whether they can legally own a gun? While those who may have been convicted and have gone on to become productive family oriented members of society are denied a fundamental right to self and family protection all because of an accident, a bad decision, or other mistake.
Another in a long train of abuses! I would bet my next paycheck that the judge who rendered this foolish decision had a gun under her robe.
I can perhaps understand disarming a man who had a felony conviction relating to a violent act. But I can NOT understand a conviction for pot being used as grounds to deny a man the right to defend his own life in his own home!
THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN AMERICA!!!!!
Let's not just hope the courts do right by us. WE THE PEOPLE are the final arbiter, not the courts. The people just haven't had enough yet, and I fear they may never if something doesn't change.
Felonies once were violent crimes with an actual victim.
Now most felonies are some act which the state proscribes, and no injured party can be produced.
There's a reason the U.S. has more people incarcerated than any other country. And the reason ain't freedom...
That's "funny". The Constitution says threats don't justify government regulating guns. Guess which is the higher authority. If you need a hint, it ain't the courts.
Of course, my rights don't depend upon the agreement of the Constitution or the courts. Just sayin'.....
So, the guy, who broke an unconstitutional law by growing weed (where's the amendment feds?), is now limited to relying on those who break the law (cops enforcing unconstitutional BS) or stone age tools to defend his life. Not sure what the laws are there, but I'd be willing to bet he can't even own a "bulletproof" vest upon release...not that it would offer much protection from a pipe attack, but just that kind of protection is probably unavailable to him.
Amen Ned. The felony creep and endless invention of new federal laws that used to be the domain of the states has brought us here...and of course it can all be boiled down to us not doing our job of making sure the feds stay within the boundaries.
If we're "free" I can't imagine what so-called police states look like.
Unfortunately and not known or appreciated by most people a felony conviction, as far as the feds are concerned, for all practical purposes, is a life sentence. A felony conviction, no matter the charge, as well as some misdemeanor convictions carries with it the loss of several rights including but not limited to; voting, free association, free movement, and the right to keep and bear arms.
Many citizens have and voice the opinion, "So what? He shouldn't have done whatever he was convicted of." Those same citizens don't appreciate the fact that they may be the next felon convicted of conspiracy by the feds. All one has to do is tell an undercover agent who knocks on his door that, "I don't sell marijuana but the man down the street does."
Becoming a felon is sorta like contracting cancer. It always happens to somebody else or somebody elses' child. And when it does happen to you it's too damn late to wish you'd had a little more sympathy for the fed's victims.
[W-III]
I read an article the other day which said the average American commits 3-5 'felonies' a day. We just ain't been 'caught' yet.
Remember, folks, official classifications of misdeeds as infractions, misdemeanors, or felonies in any one of several degrees is a marvelous way of determining the revenue-producing value each has to the state. AND, the whole deal can be adjusted by a simple majority vote, sort of like increasing the cigarette tax.
I agree that we don't want criminals to have guns. I don't care if another criminal takes his life. He's a criminal. If he wanted access to the full gamut of rights a non-criminal has, he had an easy way to stay clean. He didn't and now I don't care. FACT.
I was convicted of a crime and is no longer in prison. Why is he still a criminal?
Quite honestly, once a convict has served his time (not parole), he should regain his status as a Citizen, all rights included. If the punishment is insufficient, fix the problem. But creating second class citizens, sets all of us up for problems with categorical sweeps of government decision.
Think of American Citizens sitting in Naval prisons because the President declared them to be "enemy combatants." Citizens always deserve Due Process.
If he was, is how that was supposed to start.
"Agreed" is part of the problem. Many, MANY foolish people feel (notice I didn't say "think") the same way.
A felony is a crime so heinous that forming the intent to commit it amounts to a renunciation of citizenship. And, given that rights are by definition the obligations of the state to the citizen under the social contract, rights are for citizens, not felons or foreigners.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The "right" of self-defense is an inalienable right and cannot really be restricted. A person has that right for simply existing. Hence, any law that seeks to restrict that inalienable right is an unconstitutional act. The foolishness of some people amazes me.
Any felon who is worthy of being released from incarceration should have every 'Right' restored. Criminals who wish to have firearms will have them for their criminal acts, and then the home owner will kill them or the law will get them. But, it is time for the gun control foolishness to end.
Once upon a time, before the GCA of 1968, felons were not prohibited from own guns.
Many went on to lead normal, upright lives back then.
Funnier? Back then, felony meant something, as there was only 3 classes of felonies. Now, we have Classes 4,5,6 which delve into what is rightfully a misdemeanor. And a misdemeanor shouldn't impact anyone's rights.
But when a convicted man, who's served his time as required by the laws of Society, is unable to regain his status as citizen, he's left with no hope. Why should he shape up if he's to be perpetually punished for something he has already served his punishment on?
To the false "Charles Darwin"- "Social contracts" are total BS: tinyurl.com/yazblh2
I am not a "citizen" since no government owns me nor deserves anything other than my eternal contempt. But you go ahead and love your chains if that is what you want to do. Pathetic.
OK, How about an open discussion about what power is being exercised by the federal government in this matter. Chapter and verse.
That's why we have a comments section here, Bob--to invite open discussion on the topic.
David,
I certainly appreciate your interest in this matter. I would like those reading this to stop and ask yourself, What authority is being exercised in this matter?
It is important. Please share your ideas.
Thing is, Bob, hardly anyone comes back and reads old posts and comments, so trying to start a discussion here will not get that conversation going--but asking where the feds get authority is a recurring theme here (and at my WarOnGuns blog)--case in point my Sunday post on Judge Napolitano.
David,
I certainly appreciate your interest in this matter. I would like those reading this to stop and ask yourself, What authority is being exercised in this matter?
It is important. Please share your ideas.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!