A Washington County man charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of a handgun has filed a motion asking that the charges be dismissed based on a recent Supreme Court decision.Read the article here.
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 legal scholars argue that all constitutional rights are not guaranteed.
Just as a person can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, there can be some regulation on firearms, as well.
Duquesne University law professor Kenneth Gormley called Mr. Chontos' argument "a manufactured" one.
"There are lots of individual rights that come with limitations," he said.
By committing a crime, the felon has forfeited a number of rights, including the right to serve on a jury and to vote, as well as the right to own a firearm, he said.
Posts
This sounds like a very worthwhile effort
-
Recently, while browsing about the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, I came
across an organization called Emergency RV. They describe their mission as
f...
18 hours ago
1 comment:
Convicted felons have shown they are either unwilling or incapable of living within the rules of our society. They have violated our rules at an extreme level, and should be denied things the general law abiding public is allowed to do. There should be penalties, punishment, & consequences; whether the guy got out on parole or served the entire sentence.
Part of owning a firearm is having the restraint to use it properly. Felons have demonstrated a lack of restraint already. There are waaaaay too many repeat offenders.
Post a Comment