Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

Discuss the 2nd Amendment and issues that relate to our right to keep and bear arms.
User avatar
Suck My Glock
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 8816
Joined: May 25th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 8
Location: Peoria

Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#1

Post by Suck My Glock »

I saw this coming as soon as BRUEN was decided. And in fact, it only makes sense and is the only morally correct action to take. While I don't believe the courts will allow this guy to win regardless of him having the high ground,...it would be nice to see an honest outcome and the rule of law to win for a change.


https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/1 ... uling.html


A Portland man convicted of having a gun illegally as a felon is challenging the charge in federal court, arguing that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year makes it unconstitutional.

Another man facing allegations of murder and being a felon with a gun is seeking to dismiss the latter charge in Multnomah County Courthouse, arguing it doesn’t stand constitutional muster any longer.

The arguments were inevitable, legal observers say, in light of the high court’s new standard for evaluating Second Amendment claims. The Supreme Court struck down a New York law that placed strict limits on carrying guns outside the home.

Lower courts are just beginning to grapple with the ramifications of the Supreme Court ruling and the historical evaluation it requires, said Jeff Welty, an associate professor of public law and government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Welty said he’s not aware of any court finding fault with either federal or state laws that disqualify people convicted of felonies from possessing a gun but wrote on his criminal law blog: “I would not be at all surprised to see lower courts disagree about the proper analysis.”

Leah Bolstad, a federal prosecutor in Portland, defended the charge and pointed to other federal district courts in California, Idaho and Montana that have upheld the criminal prosecutions of felons with guns since the Supreme Court ruled in June.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority in the New York case directed lower courts to use a new “text-and-history” standard when evaluating challenges to gun regulations.

Courts must determine whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text” protects the conduct in which the plaintiff wishes to engage and, if it does, then decide if the regulation “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler represents Kneko Tyray Moore, convicted by a federal jury last December of being a felon with a gun.

Portland police said they found a loaded .40-caliber pistol with a chambered round on the front passenger floorboard of a car he was driving after it sped out of the Lone Fir Cemetery, where about 20 people had gathered in April 2020 for a barbeque.

Schindler wrote to the court that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” and the definition of “the people” isn’t limited to law-abiding, responsible citizens.

“Mr. Moore is one of ‘the people’ under the Second Amendment’s plain text,” Schindler wrote in his motion. He also cited case law noting that states didn’t start to adopt felony-based prohibitions on gun possession until the early 20th century.

The government can’t demonstrate that the criminal charge is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Schindler wrote. That means the charge is unconstitutional and the indictment against Moore should be dismissed, he said.

Bolstad said Schindler has misinterpreted the Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court “characterized the holders of Second Amendment rights as ‘law-abiding’ citizens no fewer than fourteen times,” Bolstad wrote in response. That “notably excludes convicted felons,” like Moore, Bolstad argued.

She also noted that Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote that the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen doesn’t disturb “the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.”

Numerous other courts have considered similar challenges to the felon gun restriction and have rejected them, she said. She cited rulings in September and October by federal judges in other states that are under the jurisdiction of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In November, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld the gun possession restriction for felons after a similar challenge in Pennsylvania. That court found the restriction is in line “with legislatures’ longstanding authority and discretion to disarm citizens unwilling to obey the government and its laws, whether or not they had demonstrated a propensity for violence.’’

In Multnomah County Circuit Court, defense lawyers Dianna Gentry and Sohaye Lee are urging a judge to dismiss a felon in possession of a gun charge against their client Quentin Blackmon as he awaits trial next month. Blackmon is accused in two alleged murders and in an attempted murder in 2020.

His lawyers argue similarly that the Second Amendment’s text doesn’t differentiate between convicted felons and “the people,” and the total prohibition on gun possession by felons violates the U.S. Constitution.

Multnomah County deputy district attorney Nicole Harris, in response, noted, “There is no Oregon Court that has yet considered this specific issue.” She urged a judge to look directly at the Supreme Court opinion in the New York case. She argued that the Supreme Court warned it did not intend to provide felons with “safe harbor from the longstanding prohibitions against possessing firearms.”

“The defense is trying to apply the Bruen analysis far beyond that which the U.S. Supreme Court suggested,” Harris wrote.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Kelly Skye will hear the argument in Blackmon’s case next month.

Schindler said he is not optimistic his argument will have “much traction” in the federal district court but wants to make a record for appeal.

Schindler’s motion is pending before U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, who also is the judge assigned to hear four challenges to Oregon’s narrowly approved gun control Measure 114.

The measure calls for a permit to buy a gun, a ban on the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and a completed background check before a gun can be sold. A state judge in Harney County has blocked the measure from taking effect.

Earlier this month, Portland defense lawyer Ryan Scott sent a message on Twitter, writing, “Oregon attorneys, reach out to me if you need a memo challenging Felon in Possession in Oregon” after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.

His shared a draft contending that there was no “historical tradition” as of 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, barring felons from having guns. Scott said he doesn’t expect the issue to be decided by a county circuit or federal district judge but ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Political considerations may keep even the most independent-minded trial judges from striking the felon in possession statute,” Scott said.

Lawyers may have more luck challenging misdemeanor gun prohibitions, such as a possession of a loaded gun in public or unlawful possession of a firearm charge, he said.


User avatar
kenpoprofessor
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1969
Joined: July 22nd, 2018, 4:10 am
Reputation: 3
Location: Phoenix

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#2

Post by kenpoprofessor »

I'm good with having non violent felons having their rights restored immediately after they've served their time and off parole. The best way to integrate them back into society is to give them their right back. If they can't handle those rights, keep them in jail forever.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde
User avatar
Crippledtrigger
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1326
Joined: May 14th, 2018, 2:20 pm
Reputation: 1
Location: AZ. via TX.

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#3

Post by Crippledtrigger »

Either they are a danger or thet aren't.
User avatar
laldamn
New to ArizonaShooting.org
New to ArizonaShooting.org
Posts: 1
Joined: January 11th, 2023, 9:48 am
Reputation: 0
Location: USA Austin

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#4

Post by laldamn »

There is a lot of legal debate and discussion surrounding the issue of whether or not convicted felons should be allowed to possess guns, in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling. It's clear that lawyers on both sides of the issue have strong arguments, and it will be up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of current laws and regulations. Some lawyers are arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling makes it unconstitutional for felons to be prohibited from possessing guns, while others believe that the ruling does not change the longstanding restrictions on felons owning firearms. It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the ruling and how it will ultimately affect the laws surrounding gun possession for convicted felons. In the meantime, it looks like there are many legal challenges for lawyers like Pusch & Nguyen being raised, which will likely take some time to resolve.
Last edited by laldamn on January 12th, 2023, 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Boriqua
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 3424
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:31 am
Reputation: 16
Location: East Mesa

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#5

Post by Boriqua »

Fuk em. Most felons are not serving half their sentence. Jails are over crowded, plea bargains are made because courts are over crowded. Rehabilitation is a farce, its gladiator school and nothing more. Saying that "if a person is to dangerous to own a gun they are to dangerous to be released is just not reality. Have to make more room for the next set of bad guys. There should be permanent penalties from society for being a cancer. Having your rights revoked isnt enough. Should be forced to wear a scarlet "F" so everyone knows your a piece of $hit.
User avatar
kenpoprofessor
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1969
Joined: July 22nd, 2018, 4:10 am
Reputation: 3
Location: Phoenix

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#6

Post by kenpoprofessor »

Boriqua wrote: January 11th, 2023, 10:29 am Fuk em. Most felons are not serving half their sentence. Jails are over crowded, plea bargains are made because courts are over crowded. Rehabilitation is a farce, its gladiator school and nothing more. Saying that "if a person is to dangerous to own a gun they are to dangerous to be released is just not reality. Have to make more room for the next set of bad guys. There should be permanent penalties from society for being a cancer. Having your rights revoked isnt enough. Should be forced to wear a scarlet "F" so everyone knows your a piece of $hit.


https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/st ... fenses.jsp

Almost half are in for drug offenses.

Clyde
User avatar
Boriqua
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 3424
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:31 am
Reputation: 16
Location: East Mesa

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#7

Post by Boriqua »

kenpoprofessor wrote: January 11th, 2023, 10:38 am
Boriqua wrote: January 11th, 2023, 10:29 am Fuk em. Most felons are not serving half their sentence. Jails are over crowded, plea bargains are made because courts are over crowded. Rehabilitation is a farce, its gladiator school and nothing more. Saying that "if a person is to dangerous to own a gun they are to dangerous to be released is just not reality. Have to make more room for the next set of bad guys. There should be permanent penalties from society for being a cancer. Having your rights revoked isnt enough. Should be forced to wear a scarlet "F" so everyone knows your a piece of $hit.


https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/st ... fenses.jsp

Almost half are in for drug offenses.

Clyde
Kind of torn on that one. I know with the mad rush of the "War on Drugs" guys were rounded up and given heavy sentences in the 80's and 90's for selling or possessing something as innocuous as refer but ... and like I said Im torn ... but they knew the penalties going in. Not going to claim I never did anything that was skirting the edges of the law but .. I did know what the possible consequences were.
User avatar
Suck My Glock
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 8816
Joined: May 25th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 8
Location: Peoria

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#8

Post by Suck My Glock »

The problem with rights is you can't argue for them for only some people. Rights are either for everyone or they are not rights. They are either for everybody, or nobody. You either have all your rights, or you have none of them. If they can be administratively taken away from you for political reasons and never restored regardless of conduct, they were never rights in the first place and merely mislabeled privileges.

And besides, everybody here commits at least 3 felonies a day. The fact that you simply haven't been prosecuted yet doesn't mean it ain't coming your way. In the future our enemy wants, we will be convicted of felonies at some point. So it is in everyone's selfish interest to eliminate this hypocritical bullschit.
TheAccountant
Banned
Banned
Posts: 766
Joined: August 6th, 2018, 11:38 pm
Reputation: -2

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#9

Post by TheAccountant »

Suck My Glock wrote: January 11th, 2023, 11:27 am The problem with rights is you can't argue for them for only some people. Rights are either for everyone or they are not rights. They are either for everybody, or nobody. You either have all your rights, or you have none of them. If they can be administratively taken away from you for political reasons and never restored regardless of conduct, they were never rights in the first place and merely mislabeled privileges.

And besides, everybody here commits at least 3 felonies a day. The fact that you simply haven't been prosecuted yet doesn't mean it ain't coming your way. In the future our enemy wants, we will be convicted of felonies at some point. So it is in everyone's selfish interest to eliminate this hypocritical bullschit.
You obviously didn’t bother to actually read the book.
User avatar
Suck My Glock
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 8816
Joined: May 25th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 8
Location: Peoria

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#10

Post by Suck My Glock »

TheAccountant wrote: January 11th, 2023, 6:53 pm
Suck My Glock wrote: January 11th, 2023, 11:27 am The problem with rights is you can't argue for them for only some people. Rights are either for everyone or they are not rights. They are either for everybody, or nobody. You either have all your rights, or you have none of them. If they can be administratively taken away from you for political reasons and never restored regardless of conduct, they were never rights in the first place and merely mislabeled privileges.

And besides, everybody here commits at least 3 felonies a day. The fact that you simply haven't been prosecuted yet doesn't mean it ain't coming your way. In the future our enemy wants, we will be convicted of felonies at some point. So it is in everyone's selfish interest to eliminate this hypocritical bullschit.
You obviously didn’t bother to actually read the book.
Perhaps you could reference the particular book you seem to infer.
TheAccountant
Banned
Banned
Posts: 766
Joined: August 6th, 2018, 11:38 pm
Reputation: -2

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#11

Post by TheAccountant »

Suck My Glock wrote: January 11th, 2023, 7:32 pm
TheAccountant wrote: January 11th, 2023, 6:53 pm
Suck My Glock wrote: January 11th, 2023, 11:27 am The problem with rights is you can't argue for them for only some people. Rights are either for everyone or they are not rights. They are either for everybody, or nobody. You either have all your rights, or you have none of them. If they can be administratively taken away from you for political reasons and never restored regardless of conduct, they were never rights in the first place and merely mislabeled privileges.

And besides, everybody here commits at least 3 felonies a day. The fact that you simply haven't been prosecuted yet doesn't mean it ain't coming your way. In the future our enemy wants, we will be convicted of felonies at some point. So it is in everyone's selfish interest to eliminate this hypocritical bullschit.
You obviously didn’t bother to actually read the book.
Perhaps you could reference the particular book you seem to infer.
…Three Felonies a Day. Perhaps you could reference your source since it’s the foundation of your argument.
User avatar
Suck My Glock
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 8816
Joined: May 25th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 8
Location: Peoria

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#12

Post by Suck My Glock »

TheAccountant wrote: January 11th, 2023, 7:49 pm
Suck My Glock wrote: January 11th, 2023, 7:32 pm
TheAccountant wrote: January 11th, 2023, 6:53 pm

You obviously didn’t bother to actually read the book.
Perhaps you could reference the particular book you seem to infer.
…Three Felonies a Day. Perhaps you could reference your source since it’s the foundation of your argument.
I decided to look up the phrase as you capitalize it, and lo, some fellow named Silverlgate wrote a book in 2011 by that name, apparently stealing the premise from the Cato Institute, who's pamphlets and literature from the early 90s is what I was referring to. (And the book I assume you are referring to here.) I forget whom on their staff first came up with the epiphany, but the concept was so commonly bandied about in Libertarian circles at the time that it became permanently part of the lexicon. So I'm guessing that 20 years later Harvey Silverlgate considered it safe to title his book by that. It looks like an interesting read. I might have to order that one.

(As I started looking into Mr. Silverglate's bio out of curiosity, I see where he used to occasionally write for REASON and hung out with the libertarian crowd, which likely explains a lot.)
TheAccountant
Banned
Banned
Posts: 766
Joined: August 6th, 2018, 11:38 pm
Reputation: -2

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#13

Post by TheAccountant »

Suck My Glock wrote: January 12th, 2023, 1:18 am
TheAccountant wrote: January 11th, 2023, 7:49 pm
Suck My Glock wrote: January 11th, 2023, 7:32 pm

Perhaps you could reference the particular book you seem to infer.
…Three Felonies a Day. Perhaps you could reference your source since it’s the foundation of your argument.
I decided to look up the phrase as you capitalize it, and lo, some fellow named Silverlgate wrote a book in 2011 by that name, apparently stealing the premise from the Cato Institute, who's pamphlets and literature from the early 90s is what I was referring to. (And the book I assume you are referring to here.) I forget whom on their staff first came up with the epiphany, but the concept was so commonly bandied about in Libertarian circles at the time that it became permanently part of the lexicon. So I'm guessing that 20 years later Harvey Silverlgate considered it safe to title his book by that. It looks like an interesting read. I might have to order that one.

(As I started looking into Mr. Silverglate's bio out of curiosity, I see where he used to occasionally write for REASON and hung out with the libertarian crowd, which likely explains a lot.)
Ah, the ol’ “trust me I saw this once” source. Considering he’s an adjunct scholar at Cato, been a guest speaker at Cato, been on their podcast, contributed content to Cato, and Cato covered the release of his book in 2009 with zero mention of any previous “pamphlet” published by Cato with similar ideas, I highly doubt he stole anything from them, but instead is likely the source of the tagline you like to repeat but have never bothered to actually research or understand.
User avatar
Ballistic Therapy
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1438
Joined: June 18th, 2018, 4:05 pm
Reputation: 2
Location: Pima County

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#14

Post by Ballistic Therapy »

Boriqua wrote: January 11th, 2023, 10:29 am Fuk em. Most felons are not serving half their sentence. Jails are over crowded, plea bargains are made because courts are over crowded. Rehabilitation is a farce, its gladiator school and nothing more. Saying that "if a person is to dangerous to own a gun they are to dangerous to be released is just not reality. Have to make more room for the next set of bad guys. There should be permanent penalties from society for being a cancer. Having your rights revoked isnt enough. Should be forced to wear a scarlet "F" so everyone knows your a piece of $hit.
So you are saying that anyone that has been convicted of a felony is a piece of s*** ?
Kind of ride a high horse don't you ?

I personally know more than one person that has been convicted of a felony that I would trust with anything that is mine.

We would all be felons if we were caught for everything we ever did.
User avatar
XJThrottle
ArizonaShooting.org Bronze Supporter
ArizonaShooting.org Bronze Supporter
Posts: 2882
Joined: June 26th, 2018, 5:43 pm
Reputation: 7
Location: Phoemex

Re: Defense lawyers challenge gun restriction for felons in light of Supreme Court ruling

#15

Post by XJThrottle »

Ballistic Therapy wrote: January 12th, 2023, 5:40 am
Boriqua wrote: January 11th, 2023, 10:29 am Fuk em. Most felons are not serving half their sentence. Jails are over crowded, plea bargains are made because courts are over crowded. Rehabilitation is a farce, its gladiator school and nothing more. Saying that "if a person is to dangerous to own a gun they are to dangerous to be released is just not reality. Have to make more room for the next set of bad guys. There should be permanent penalties from society for being a cancer. Having your rights revoked isnt enough. Should be forced to wear a scarlet "F" so everyone knows your a piece of $hit.
So you are saying that anyone that has been convicted of a felony is a piece of s*** ?
Kind of ride a high horse don't you ?

I personally know more than one person that has been convicted of a felony that I would trust with anything that is mine.

We would all be felons if we were caught for everything we ever did.
I'd bet there are a bunch of "pending felons" on the board, considering all the things that went down with the boat.
Post Reply