From MPR / Bob Collins:
Minnesota court upholds gun ban
A lifetime ban on handgun ownership by people who have committed a crime of violence does not violate the Constitution, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.
The court ruled today in the case of Andrew Craig, who was stopped by Mounds View police on suspicion of domestic assault in 2009. Police found a gun in the car, which he claimed was put in his backpack by his girlfriend. Craig had previously been convicted of possession of drugs, which Minnesota considers a crime of violence.
Craig appealed the ban on gun ownership but the court said "... the Supreme Court did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right, so that restrictions on this right are subject to a strict-scrutiny standard of review."
The court said Minnesota law, which declares "a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms," does not bolster Craig's appeal because the 2003 concealed carry law recognizes persons the Legislature "has deemed ineligible to possess a firearm."
Judge Natalie Hudson said protecting the public from offenders who use guns is "an important governmental objective."
Although the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban (the Heller case) in 2008, Judge Hudson said that case made clear that the right to own a gun "is held by 'law-abiding, responsible citizens.'"
"A person convicted of a felony, particular one that is listed as a 'crime of violence' ... has demonstrated that he or she is not a law-abiding, responsible citizen," she wrote.
sounds like a good decision to me.
ReplyDelete"Craig appealed the ban on gun ownership but the court said "... the Supreme Court did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right, so that restrictions on this right are subject to a strict-scrutiny standard of review."
ReplyDeleteThe court said Minnesota law, which declares "a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms," does not bolster Craig's appeal because the 2003 concealed carry law recognizes persons the Legislature "has deemed ineligible to possess a firearm."
Judge Natalie Hudson said protecting the public from offenders who use guns is "an important governmental objective."
Although the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban (the Heller case) in 2008, Judge Hudson said that case made clear that the right to own a gun "is held by 'law-abiding, responsible citizens.'"
"A person convicted of a felony, particular one that is listed as a 'crime of violence' ... has demonstrated that he or she is not a law-abiding, responsible citizen," she wrote."
GODdamned activist judges! She's prolly a comfeminazi, too!
George Soros buys another COURT OF LAW, Oh, the humanity!
"Craig had previously been convicted of possession of drugs, which Minnesota considers a crime of violence."
ReplyDeleteUh, what? I have no problem banning violent offenders from owning guns. Let's just make sure that they are actually violent offenders.
This:
ReplyDeletehttp://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-court-of-appeals/1587290.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FindLawMinnCtApp+(FindLaw+Case+Law+Updates+-+MN+Court+of+Appeals)
is the appeal.
It appears that the defendant was in jail for a previous crime. I'm fairly certain that they menion things like, "U can't haz teh gunz.". Whether he agreed with that or not is moot.
We've discussed this before. I'm all for restoring rights to those who reform their ways, but this guy sounds like a committed loser. I have no problem with his being deprived of guns.
ReplyDelete"I'm all for restoring rights to those who reform their ways, but this guy sounds like a committed loser."
ReplyDeleteSez the shootist who doesn't trust mental healthcare PROFESSIONALS and who also sez that there is no test that can determine, FOR SURE, that someone might commit a crime with a gun. Apparently, that sort of test can only be performed on felons and only Greg Camp can administer the test.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteNo, the loser lost his rights all on his own. He committed a felony. That's an easy test to make. You commit a felony, you lose a number of rights. If you want them back, you've got to work hard to earn them. I don't see a problem with that kind of system.
Greg, how can you say
ReplyDelete"I don't see a problem with that kind of system."
and argue with us about everything we say?
"Greg, how can you say
ReplyDelete"I don't see a problem with that kind of system."
and argue with us about everything we say?"
It's easy, Mikeb302000. Those untrustworthy mental healthcare professionals call it "cognitive dissonance".
I think the point is that we should punish criminals - not law abiding citizens with no record.
ReplyDeleteExactly, Jim, convicted felons lose their gun rights, unless they can prove that they deserve to get them back.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie,
So you've found a test that will identify who's going to commit a crime in advance, but won't produce false positives?
I don't see any reason ever to give felons their gun rights back IF they committed a crime of violence.
ReplyDeleteNo earning that back once you hurt someone. We get to prohibit those people, by law, choosing to err on the side of caution.
GC then writes So you've found a test that will identify who's going to commit a crime in advance, but won't produce false positives?
It is possible to set up an appeals process to identify false positives with additional testing and a different person to interpret the results. But if the choice is a false positive that prohibits someone from having a firearm, versus NO screening for dangerous mental illness, like that resulting in mass shootings - like the one that involved 19 people in Arizona - then 19 lives versus one person's right to carry who MIGHT be a false positive, the benefits so overwhelmingly outweigh the negatives as to be no contest in favor of testing.
Unless you actually hold life cheaply, in which case your claim to need a firearm to protect your life also fails.
Because you don't get to argue that only your life has value.
"So you've found a test that will identify who's going to commit a crime in advance, but won't produce false positives?"
ReplyDeleteDo you actually HAVE reading comprehension difficulties? Please furnish a quote where I stated such. Unlike you, you simpleton, I know what I've said in previous comments.
You're the sententious pedant who likes to point at what you perceive to be a contradiction in someone else's comments contra a previous comment by that person*. You have said, several times, recently that there IS no definitive test to determine whether someone might become violent with a gun. There is, actually, numbnuts; it's called a violent felony conviction. Violent people are not to be trusted with weapons. We can't keep them from buying Assault screwdrivers or screwdrivers with extended magazines or armor piercing phillips tips (carbide) so we tend to concentrate on those TOOLS that are designed, specifically, to KILL MOTHERFUCKERS.
Now, you're the one who claims these folks CAN be trusted to once again enjoy their gunz rightz. By what test do they prove that? who administers the test (the NRA)? Can they go to Kaplan or somebody to bone up for the exam? I mean, c'mon, you're the guy who sez that criminalz should get all of their rightz back. When you can prove that people have been killed by drive-by voting, give me a citation.
* In which cases you're generally completely full of shit.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI've seen arguments here for giving felons back the right to vote. That seems as important as gun rights, and I've said that we might want to restore those rights after careful evaluation of the felon. But I'm not itching to restore rights at all. That's the kind of thing that's worth considering, but it's not a big deal to me.
Dog Gone,
I'm not a serious supporter of restoring any rights to felons, so don't get all worked up about giving back gun rights to them.
Regarding an appeals process, I see no reason that citizens should have to go through the expense and time to get what they have a right to in the first place. You may have nothing better to do with your time and money, but many people don't have that luxury. Consider the uproar that you'd raise if there were a similar proposal for voting rights. Would you accept an appeals process whenever a voter is denied? Is that a good solution? You're against voter ID laws, no? Once again, you're willing to sacrifice rights that you don't believe in, but when it's a right that matters to you, you get in a snit over someone having any problem exercising that right.