Friday, January 27, 2012

The Courts Protect Us from Gun Nuts

Another Judicial win, for sane, safer gun regulation, prohibiting bad people, who should NOT have guns from legally having easy access to firearms and ammo.

We need more decisions like this for gun sanity.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

High court OKs gun ban for misdemeanor criminals

The U.S. Supreme Court turned down a Napa County man's challenge Tuesday of a California law that imposes a 10-year ban on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime involving violence or threats of force.
Rick Delacy's appeal was argued by a lawyer who also represents the National Rifle Association, and supporting arguments were also filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association.
They contended gun restrictions based on convictions for misdemeanors, punishable by no more than a year in jail, violate the constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense that the Supreme Court recognized in 2008.
They also argued that misdemeanor battery, Delacy's previous crime, is not necessarily violent. Although the law defines battery as a "willful and unlawful use of force or violence" against another, it can consist of touching someone in a harmful or offensive way without the person's consent.
The high court denied review without comment. The ruling left intact a February 2011 decision by a state appeals court in San Francisco upholding Delacy's conviction and the California law.
Delacy was on probation from his battery conviction when officers searched his home in April 2008 and found three rifles and a shotgun, said the appellate court, which did not give details of the battery. Another search six months later turned up two caches of shotgun shells. Delacy told officers he used the guns for hunting and hadn't been told he was prohibited from owning them.
He was convicted under a law that prohibits possession of guns or ammunition by anyone convicted within the past 10 years of one of about 40 misdemeanors, all involving either violence, threats or a dangerous mental condition. Delacy was sentenced to an additional three years of probation.
In upholding his convictions, the First District Court of Appeal noted that the Supreme Court's recent gun-rights decisions expressly left room for states to prohibit firearms ownership by convicted felons, including those whose crimes were nonviolent.
By the same reasoning, the appellate panel said, the Constitution allows the government to ban gun possession by misdemeanor criminals, including convicted batterers, "who have shown a propensity to commit violence against others."
The case is Delacy vs. California, 11-290.


  1. And? This decision comes as no surprise. Courts don't tend to look with favor on people like this making this kind of case, and rightly so. This doesn't change anything for the millions of good gun owners in this country.

    1. And yet gun nuts across the country are trying to restore gun ownership to dangerous criminals. We have conservatives doing so this legislative session in Minnesota.

      And you Greg are on record as opposing all gun laws, as are other gun lunatics.

      That is stupid on the face of it.

    2. Why Greg, you hypocrite.

      What happened to your faith in the goodness of people?

    3. Dog Gone, what are you talking about? I'm on record here saying that those who commit violent crimes don't deserve to own firearms. I've already pointed out to you that your claim about Minnesota trying to give gun rights back to criminals is bullshit. I've told you that people in general are good, while there are a few bad actors. In other words, you're trying to put words into my mouth that I never said.

    4. The attempt to give gun rights back to criminals in Minnesota is NOT bullshit.

      There are long lists of people not being good with firearms. And you are both simplistic and inaccurate in your claims about people being good.

      EVERY person is a mix of good and bad, and you have no way in hell of knowing which of the two is going to be making the decision with a gun.

      YOU certainly don't persuade me that intelligence will be the determinant.

    5. I did some looking into Minnesota's proposed new gun laws. The constitutional amendment is to include a specific right to bear arms. What does that have to do with rearming criminals? Their rights are taken away upon conviction. Where in the proposed amendment is the idea of restoring rights to violent offenders?

    6. As I figured, Dog Gone's got nothing.

  2. Now that's what I call a sensible gun control law.