Convicted felon wants a gun
A convicted felon and his lawyer have decided that the Heller vs. DC Supreme Court decision applies to the rights of felons to protect themselves in their home according to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette;
James F. Barton Jr. argues that the court’s opinion lifting the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. — and the assertion that the possession of guns in the home is an individual right — must be applied to all people.
Senior U.S. District Judge Alan N. Bloch has scheduled a July 31 hearing on the matter .
On its face, Mr. Barton’s argument appears to have no merit because the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller specifically noted: “[Nothing] in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill … .”
But it’s precisely because of that language that attorney David B. Chontos, who represents Mr. Barton, filed his motion to dismiss.
Several legal scholars agree that the instruction in the opinion is nothing but dictum, merely a statement by the court that is not binding as a precedent in lower courts or for the future Supreme Court.
But Mr. Chontos based his argument on language included in the Second Amendment, which reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Mr. Chontos argues that the phrase “the people,” must mean the same as it does in other amendments, including the First, which guarantees free speech and freedom of religion, and the Fourth, which guarantees privacy and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
Well, then eight-year-olds should take to the courts, too, because surely, and eight-year-old might have the occasion to defend themselves in their homes. Eight-year-olds are people, too. An eight-year-old lacks the judgment to safely own a handgun…and a convicted felon lacks the judgment to safely own a handgun.
Stupid ambulance chasing lawyers.
Err, Nope! The Colonies had restrictions against “felons” owning firearms! In those days, however, the felons were typically (although not always) put to death.
Sorry Chontos! You don’t WIN this lottery! LOSER! Neener, neener!
So, Chontos, what was YOUR felony? Should we (as I tend to think) return to eliminating your sorry-ass from the gene-pool?
I think that just because I “sold” less than an ounce of marijuana 35 years ago to a narc who came to me and asked me for it to get himself off the hook for writing bad checks and I haven’t so much as had a speeding ticket since that I should be rendered defenseless because of my high crimes. Actually I gave the rat bastard the pot and he left marked money on my coffee table that I was unaware of until the cops busted me. I realize that I shouldn’t have had the pot in the first place but you without sin cast the first stone. I don’t drink, smoke or do drugs and haven’t for 33 years. I don’t think my “felony” should disqualify me from defending my family and my home from the thugs in our society who would do us harm. Most members of congress have done more illegal shit than I ever thought about. Talk about hypocrites. Now there is a bunch of criminals.
Anywho, good stuff. I have been enjoying the posts.
[…] rights of felons to protect themselves in their home according to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette ?Jamehttp://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=20982 Montana campgrounds closed after bear bites camper KTVB BoiseHELENA, Mont. — Two Montana […]