Federal Judge Strikes Down Gun Possession Limit for Violating Second Amendment

[wolfbait]

Federal Judge Strikes Down Gun Possession Limit for Violating Second Amendment

https://slaynews.com/news/federal-judge-strikes-down-gun-possession-limit-violating-second-amendment/

[Knocker of rocks]

Something is not adding up in the article. The individual is seemingly prohibited from gun ownership because he received a sentence of five years. Which implies he was found guilty of a felony. But the article also stated he was found guilty of a misdemeanor.

[LDennis24]

I think that's because they are referencing Pennsylvania law Knocker.

[Knocker of rocks]

But whatever it is called or what the crime was/is is not the issue

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

[jackelope]

Something is not adding up in the article. The individual is seemingly prohibited from gun ownership because he received a sentence of five years. Which implies he was found guilty of a felony. But the article also stated he was found guilty of a misdemeanor.

There’s more to the story.  He’s a habitual drunk driver.  Weird that slay news would leave out all the details…

https://thereload.com/federal-judge-rules-duis-cant-result-in-lifetime-gun-ban/

“The case stems from Williams’ 2005 conviction for driving while intoxicated. That conviction was a misdemeanor under Pennsylvania law, but it was enhanced because Williams had previously avoided a conviction for DUI in 2000 after agreeing to a diversionary program. That pushed his potential punishment up to five years in prison, which meant it qualified as a felony under the federal law restricting gun possession.”

[Knocker of rocks]

It’s hard to fathom why it was found that his gun rights were wrongly revoked. He was sentenced to five years, with 4 1/2 suspended. But the 1968 law only cares about the sentence.

[Knocker of rocks]

  Weird that slay news would leave out all the details…

That’s the lamestream media for you

[LDennis24]

Ahh, makes more sense now. Habitual D-bag...

[wolfbait]

Something is not adding up in the article. The individual is seemingly prohibited from gun ownership because he received a sentence of five years. Which implies he was found guilty of a felony. But the article also stated he was found guilty of a misdemeanor.

There’s more to the story.  He’s a habitual drunk driver.  Weird that slay news would leave out all the details…

https://thereload.com/federal-judge-rules-duis-cant-result-in-lifetime-gun-ban/

“The case stems from Williams’ 2005 conviction for driving while intoxicated. That conviction was a misdemeanor under Pennsylvania law, but it was enhanced because Williams had previously avoided a conviction for DUI in 2000 after agreeing to a diversionary program. That pushed his potential punishment up to five years in prison, which meant it qualified as a felony under the federal law restricting gun possession.”

Guess maybe you missed this part in the Slay news link jack,

"Williams was arrested for driving under the influence multiple times in the early 2000s, including in 2000, 2001, and 2004.

The charges for the 2001 arrest were dismissed.

Upon being arrested in 2004, Williams was found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.223, which is significantly over the 0.08 legal limit.

Because Williams was arrested for driving under the influence in 2000, Williams, for this 2004 arrest, was charged with – and convicted of – a first-degree misdemeanor.

Not only did this mean that Williams could face up to five years of imprisonment, but it also meant that – under the statute mentioned above – Williams would not be able to possess a firearm."

https://slaynews.com/news/federal-judge-strikes-down-gun-possession-limit-violating-second-amendment/

[Jake Dogfish]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

[Knocker of rocks]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

[Jake Dogfish]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Not if they are in jail.

[jackelope]

Something is not adding up in the article. The individual is seemingly prohibited from gun ownership because he received a sentence of five years. Which implies he was found guilty of a felony. But the article also stated he was found guilty of a misdemeanor.

There’s more to the story.  He’s a habitual drunk driver.  Weird that slay news would leave out all the details…

https://thereload.com/federal-judge-rules-duis-cant-result-in-lifetime-gun-ban/

“The case stems from Williams’ 2005 conviction for driving while intoxicated. That conviction was a misdemeanor under Pennsylvania law, but it was enhanced because Williams had previously avoided a conviction for DUI in 2000 after agreeing to a diversionary program. That pushed his potential punishment up to five years in prison, which meant it qualified as a felony under the federal law restricting gun possession.”

Guess maybe you missed this part in the Slay news link jack,

"Williams was arrested for driving under the influence multiple times in the early 2000s, including in 2000, 2001, and 2004.

The charges for the 2001 arrest were dismissed.

Upon being arrested in 2004, Williams was found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.223, which is significantly over the 0.08 legal limit.

Because Williams was arrested for driving under the influence in 2000, Williams, for this 2004 arrest, was charged with – and convicted of – a first-degree misdemeanor.

Not only did this mean that Williams could face up to five years of imprisonment, but it also meant that – under the statute mentioned above – Williams would not be able to possess a firearm."

https://slaynews.com/news/federal-judge-strikes-down-gun-possession-limit-violating-second-amendment/

You missed the part where he agreed to a diversionary program, and then didn’t divert from his habitual drunk driving. Did it again, which is why it was switched to a felony.  Your article doesn’t mention that. It just mentions he lost his rights due to a misdemeanor which is weird. People don’t lose rights for misdemeanor crimes.

The question here though seems to be whether being a habitual drunk driver should cost 2A rights. I’d rather see someone not be a habitual drunk driver personally, but it’s not my decision. Hopefully he’s a better person now and hasn’t killed anyone.

[Knocker of rocks]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Not if they are in jail.

And once they are released?

[jackelope]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Not if they are in jail.

You’re good with it once they’re out dealing again?

[Jake Dogfish]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Not if they are in jail.

You’re good with it once they’re out dealing again?

I was talking about drug and alcohol users, not liquor stores or dealers.

[jackelope]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Not if they are in jail.

You’re good with it once they’re out dealing again?

I was talking about drug and alcohol users, not liquor stores or dealers.

How do you tell if a guy busted for using wasn’t also a dealer who used guns to commit drug related crimes?

[Knocker of rocks]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Not if they are in jail.

You’re good with it once they’re out dealing again?

I was talking about drug and alcohol users, not liquor stores or dealers.

So a person should be allowed to get unlimited DUI’s without realizing their full punishment?

[optic2]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Once a person is out of prison and finished parole are their other Constitutional rights suspended? Imagine if a state said a convicted felon no longer has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, no 4th Amendment rights and no 5th Amendment rights.

The way I look at is if we can't trust someone to own a gun then that sounds like they should still be in prison.

Plus the law prevents zero crime. It's as easy to get a gun on the illegal market as it is to buy gum at a 7-11.

[Jake Dogfish]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Not if they are in jail.

You’re good with it once they’re out dealing again?

I was talking about drug and alcohol users, not liquor stores or dealers.

So a person should be allowed to get unlimited DUI’s without realizing their full punishment?

No.

[Jake Dogfish]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Not if they are in jail.

You’re good with it once they’re out dealing again?

I was talking about drug and alcohol users, not liquor stores or dealers.

How do you tell if a guy busted for using wasn’t also a dealer who used guns to commit drug related crimes?

That sounds like a good question for your local “Coffee with a cop”. 

[Knocker of rocks]

Drugs or alcohol should not override your 2a rights.
Even if your dad is president.

So felony drug dealers should be able to pack?

Once a person is out of prison and finished parole are their other Constitutional rights suspended?

Actually yes, their right to vote stops. And right here on this board movements to allow ex-felons the right to vote is often decried as just a why to get more dem votes

[ghosthunter]

I guess it depends on how much punishment do we require of a convicted person.
For me is is not black and white. To me the crime, the intent at time of crime and how many years have lapsed since the crime.

I know a young man who got convicted of having sex with a minor
36 months younger than him I think. He was 18. The young lady would sneak out and meet him in a park. There was no weapon, No violence, just two kids.

Her mother read her diary and found out. Thus charges.

He got a year at Forks, and five years monitoring.  28 years later he has married
raised  a son ,works everyday, does volunteer community work with homeless in his off time.



Yet no rights.

I think he has paid his dues.

[Knocker of rocks]

As related, the story has several implausibilities. The age difference is less than the customary triggering unless there was coercive behavior based on work, school and mental ability

With a little skullduggery one can figure out the law in effect in 1995

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.44&full=true

[JimmyHoffa]

I think you can retain rights for felonies if they are certain white collar, financial crimes.

[pianoman9701]

I think you can retain rights for felonies if they are certain white collar, financial crimes.

That depends on the state. Blue states, especially those with more oppressive gun control laws, tend to have a longer list of convictions which will preclude you from firearm possession.

[Knocker of rocks]

It’s a federal issue

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

[jackelope]

I guess it depends on how much punishment do we require of a convicted person.
For me is is not black and white. To me the crime, the intent at time of crime and how many years have lapsed since the crime.

I know a young man who got convicted of having sex with a minor
36 months younger than him I think. He was 18. The young lady would sneak out and meet him in a park. There was no weapon, No violence, just two kids.

Her mother read her diary and found out. Thus charges.

He got a year at Forks, and five years monitoring.  28 years later he has married
raised  a son ,works everyday, does volunteer community work with homeless in his off time.



Yet no rights.

I think he has paid his dues.

Has he petitioned to get his rights reinstated?

[Jpmiller]

I don't mean to besmirch anyones story that I don't know, but I can say that I've known at least two folks who have lost firearm privileges under similar circumstances only to find out later that maybe the armed robbery they forgot about had something to do with it too.

[jackelope]

Besmirch? What the heck with the $25 words!!

[pianoman9701]

It’s a federal issue

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

It's also by state, just like voting rights for felons.

[Jpmiller]

Besmirch? What the heck with the $25 words!!

I blame the trivia thread for making me smarter

[pianoman9701]

Besmirch? What the heck with the $25 words!!

I blame the trivia thread for making me smarter

Glad to be of assistance, you percipient individual.

[bigtex]

I think you can retain rights for felonies if they are certain white collar, financial crimes.

That depends on the state. Blue states, especially those with more oppressive gun control laws, tend to have a longer list of convictions which will preclude you from firearm possession.

While yes, but many blue states also have enacted laws that reduce felony convictions to misdemeanors after a sentence is completed. The reasoning is that some believe a felony conviction will prevent the individual from getting a job, etc. You don't see this in red states.

As an example, in California almost all felony convictions (except the most haneous) can be reduced to a misdemeanor after the individual completes all jail/prison time, probation, fines, etc. Once this conversion occurs the individual is no longer a convicted felon and can possess firearms.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[ghosthunter]

I guess it depends on how much punishment do we require of a convicted person.
For me is is not black and white. To me the crime, the intent at time of crime and how many years have lapsed since the crime.

I know a young man who got convicted of having sex with a minor
36 months younger than him I think. He was 18. The young lady would sneak out and meet him in a park. There was no weapon, No violence, just two kids.

Her mother read her diary and found out. Thus charges.

He got a year at Forks, and five years monitoring.  28 years later he has married
raised  a son ,works everyday, does volunteer community work with homeless in his off time.



Yet no rights.

I think he has paid his dues.

Has he petitioned to get his rights reinstated?

No

Never felt he had the extra money to spend on it. He now is legally Blind so no need for firearm rights any more.