The Volokh Conspiracy reports that the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania has ruled that cohabiting with a "prohibited person"--someone banned by law from possessing firearms--cannot be legitimately used as an excuse to be deprived of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. In this case (pdf file), the defendant, Melissa Huet, owned an SKS rifle, kept in the home she shared with her boyfriend, convicted felon Marvin Hall. Although Hall was never witnessed touching the gun, Huet was charged with aiding and abeting the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, by virtue of her own possession of the gun, in the home she shared with him.
The Court finds that the Indictment fails to set forth an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2. Furthermore, under Heller, and its progeny, the Second Amendment protects defendant Huet’s right to possess the firearm the government seeks to criminalize through the use of sections 2 and 922(g)(1). To hold otherwise would be to ignore Heller: defendant Huet, not being a felon, insane, or otherwise disabled from possessing a gun, is entitled to possess a lawful firearm in her home, a place which is recognized as sacrosanct for purposes of Second Amendment analysis.
Regular readers have probably caught on by now to the fact that there is little enthusiasm to be found in this column for the concept of "prohibited persons" when it comes to gun possession. As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea frequently says, "anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian." The list of reasons for which one can become a "prohibited person" is long. With passage in 2007 of the "NICS 'Improvement' Act," that list grew still longer, and now includes tens of thousands of veterans whose only "crime" is enduring the horrors of war in service to their country. Now, some advocate expanding that list still more. Moreover, there is also a school of thought that depriving civil rights to convicted felons is racist, due to evidence that non-whites are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at higher rates than equally criminal white offenders.
As problematical as it is to designate a large segment of the population as undeserving of the exercise the right to keep and bear arms, the problem is brought into even sharper relief when one considers the fact that someone who has in no other respect been deemed unworthy of that right could be prosecuted for exercising it while living with (or being visited by?) a "prohibited person."
Advocates of forcible citizen disarmament incessantly lament that the ineffectiveness of American "gun control" is due to the fact that there isn't enough of it--that the laws we have can't work until we have more laws, to help them work. As discussed here once before:
When one thinks about it, every gun law criminalizes behavior that in and of itself does no harm. Take the Gun Control Act of 1968--which made it illegal for felons to own guns, despite the fact that mere ownership of a gun (or a million guns) by a felon hurts no one.
Since then, as it became clear that simply outlawing possession of firearms by felons wasn't accomplishing much, because being inclined to criminality, they tended to acquire them despite the law, more laws were added to try to stop that acquisition process. So we have background checks. Selling a gun without a background check hurts no one, but without such a check, it's easier for felons to buy guns. Remember that a felon buying a gun is not in and of itself harmful to anyone, either, so now we have two layers of laws against behavior that harms no one.
Now, it's proposed that we close the "private sale 'loophole,'" adding a third layer--now we make it illegal to sell one's own property privately, even though conducting such a sale violates no one's rights, because doing so makes bypassing background checks easier. Bypassing background checks, you'll remember, harms no one, either, but it has to be stopped in order to help make sure that felons don't buy guns. Felons buying guns, remember, is also in and of itself harmless, but since felons tend to be dangerous people, they have to be kept disarmed.
That's (one of) the problem(s) with the "prohibited persons" concept--it requires a vast infrastructure of supporting laws--including every law intended to combat "gun trafficking" ("gun show loophole" laws, "one gun a month" laws, "lost and stolen" laws, etc.), and leads to the denial of Second Amendment rights to people who have done no wrong, but who associate with others whom the government has decided must be disarmed.
Shall not be infringed fixes all these problems in one fell swoop.
See also:
- The Brady Campaign to create 'gun crime'
- Gun Rights 101: Should felons' gun rights be restored...ever?
- Who can we trust with guns? Who can we trust with freedom?
- Court says threats don't justify felon having gun
- Who is prohibited from owning guns?
- Federal court recognizes felons' right to vote--what about self-defense?
- Does denying guns to 'prohibited persons' ensure public safety?
- Citizen disarmament lobby wants to expand 'prohibited persons' list
Comments
Once again the government is trying to punish the innocent but somehoe the courts got it right and rejected the government's position. If the government at all levels had their way every American by virtue of being American would be a "prohibited" party. if a felon has paid their debt to society and has not used a weapon to murder or attempt to murder someone what does it matter if that right is restored? If they are intent on committing a crime with a gun they will get it legally or illegally and if the government thinks that some law passed by a bunch of pompus baffoons in a legislature of some kind if goign to stop that felon they are delusional and should be porhibited themselves by virtue of the ridiculous laws they are passing. Most laws are passed today to increase fines as a secondary source of governmental taxes because the government has exceeded it's budget and current taxes alone will not sustain the current government. Look at Obama freezing federal wages on rank and file but not management or congress or himself.
Geeee....
Could this be yet another example of government doing exactly what it wants to do just because it can and no body from the courts or anywhere else says boo?
Constitution? We'll tell you what it means... Even if it doesn't say it! Hey.. What are YOU, going to to do about it?
Same school yard bullies you had to unconvinced before.
Kurt you make to much sense!
Prohibited persons as described by the government is a form of slavery and creates a 2nd class of citizen.
Yesterday I heard Larry Pratt in a radio interview say that we gun owners/American people should be able to buy guns under the same standards as the Mexican drug cartels; pay cash with NO paper work.
He went on to say it was ludicrous to think the Mexican drug cartel that brings in loads of drugs in planes and boats couldn’t through in a couple of crates of guns.
The whole notion that they have to come to gun shows and unsuspecting FFL dealers in the USA for their firearm needs is ludicrous.
I have always believed that the only people that shouldn’t own a firearm are those in prison, those in a mental hospital or those people illegally in the country.
I also promote the idea that any gun group that continues to support gun control in the name of being tough on crime should be boycotted or abandoned.
And let's not forget that now ex post facto law is acceptable. So many lose their rights due to things that were not against the law way back when, and that are less than felonies.
As for felons with guns..? What the hell, didn't we lock them up long enough..?
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!