Suck My Glock
Member
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/2022/12/oregon-defense-lawyers-challenge-gun-restriction-for-felons-in-light-of-supreme-court-ruling.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.
[highlight=yellow]The arguments were inevitable, legal observers say, in light of the high court’s new standard for evaluating Second Amendment claims.[/highlight] 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 [highlight=yellow]cited case law noting that states didn’t start to adopt felony-based prohibitions on gun possession until the early 20th century.[/highlight]
[highlight=yellow]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.[/highlight]
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.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/12/oregon-defense-lawyers-challenge-gun-restriction-for-felons-in-light-of-supreme-court-ruling.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.
[highlight=yellow]The arguments were inevitable, legal observers say, in light of the high court’s new standard for evaluating Second Amendment claims.[/highlight] 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 [highlight=yellow]cited case law noting that states didn’t start to adopt felony-based prohibitions on gun possession until the early 20th century.[/highlight]
[highlight=yellow]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.[/highlight]
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.
