SCOTUS says convicted felons have the right to sell their guns

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian Howell

unread,
May 18, 2015, 7:26:36 PM5/18/15
to Ipse-...@googlegroups.com
Per 18 U.S.C. §922(g), convicted felons are not allowed to own firearms.

The Supreme Court rendered a decision today in which it said that convicted felony gun owners have the right to determine to whom their forfeited firearms are transferred (sold). Elana Kagen wrote the unanimous opinion.





Craig Good

unread,
May 19, 2015, 3:03:56 AM5/19/15
to Brian Howell, Ipse-...@googlegroups.com
Kind of a no-brainer, unless one is a fan of robbery under law.


On May 18, 2015, at 16:26 PM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Supreme Court rendered a decision today in which it said that convicted felony gun owners have the right to determine to whom their forfeited firearms are transferred (sold). Elana Kagen wrote the unanimous opinion.
>


--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

If I've told you once I've told you a million times... Don't
exaggerate!

David Fetter

unread,
May 19, 2015, 9:20:50 AM5/19/15
to Ipse Dixit
Dispossessing people of tools they used in perpetrating a crime has
very, very long legal precedents. Are you proposing that those be
overturned?

Cheers,
David.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/B31D87EF-41E9-45CD-B905-F309EFBB6A3C%40me.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david....@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

jack saunders

unread,
May 19, 2015, 11:02:57 AM5/19/15
to Craig Good, Brian Howell, Ipse-...@googlegroups.com
If 9-0 with this Supreme Court, it must be a no-brainer....which leaves us to ponder the rationale for hauling this argument all the way through.  Years of litigation, millions in litigation cost....paid by somebody.

Maybe some guy in the association of government lawyers who wanted to do a SCOTUS case before retiring?

 


From: Craig Good <clg...@me.com>
To: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ipse-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] SCOTUS says convicted felons have the right to sell their guns
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

Brian Howell

unread,
May 19, 2015, 11:19:01 AM5/19/15
to Ipse-...@googlegroups.com
The SCOTUS decision overturned an individual ruling by a federal judge that allowed for the effective seizure of the firearms of convicted felon, Tony Henderson. The guns had a market value of about $3,500. After his conviction, Henderson sought to transfer ownership of his guns to his wife or a friend, which the FBI forbade, on the grounds that such transfers would give Henderson technical possession of the guns. Henderson sued the government but the judge agreed with the FBI. The decision was later sustained at the appellate level. 

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued for the government that "allowing a felon to sell or transfer ownership of their guns presents a “significant risk” that he or she could still have access to them."

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:02 AM, jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:
If 9-0 with this Supreme Court, it must be a no-brainer....which leaves us to ponder the rationale for hauling this argument all the way through.  Years of litigation, millions in litigation cost....paid by somebody.

Maybe some guy in the association of government lawyers who wanted to do a SCOTUS case before retiring?

 


vince koloski

unread,
May 19, 2015, 3:09:36 PM5/19/15
to David Fetter, Ipse Dixit
The court does not seem to be saying this as they note that this case does not fit the "unclean hands" doctrine as the guns were not used in the commission of the felony. The idea that the government could take my deer rifle without compensation because I got a felony marijuana possession conviction seems unreasonable.
 
Vince Koloski



From: David Fetter <da...@fetter.org>
To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:20 AM

Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] SCOTUS says convicted felons have the right to sell their guns

Dispossessing people of tools they used in perpetrating a crime has
very, very long legal precedents.  Are you proposing that those be
overturned?

Cheers,
David.
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:03:52AM -0700, Craig Good wrote:
> Kind of a no-brainer, unless one is a fan of robbery under law.
>
>
> On May 18, 2015, at 16:26 PM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Supreme Court rendered a decision today in which it said that convicted felony gun owners have the right to determine to whom their forfeited firearms are transferred (sold). Elana Kagen wrote the unanimous opinion.
> >
>
>
> --
>    --Craig                                                      WWJGD?
>    clg...@me.com        http://www.craig-good.com
>
>    If I've told you once I've told you a million times...  Don't
>    exaggerate!
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/B31D87EF-41E9-45CD-B905-F309EFBB6A3C%40me.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david....@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/20150519132049.GB18751%40fetter.org.

Scott Hotes

unread,
May 19, 2015, 6:14:42 PM5/19/15
to Ipse-...@googlegroups.com
That sounds reasonable, as marijuana possession is not a violent crime. If instead you
had been convicted of a violent crime, but it happened that you did not use this particular
weapon in perpetrating the crime, would the state have some standing in taking it away from
you? Does the state have some standing to disallow access of firearms to those convicted
of violent crimes?

Scott


On 5/19/15 12:09 PM, 'vince koloski' via Ipse Dixit wrote:
> The court does not seem to be saying this as they note that this case does not fit the "unclean hands" doctrine as the guns were not used in the commission of the felony. The idea that the government could take my deer rifle without compensation because I got a felony marijuana possession conviction seems unreasonable. Vince Koloski
>
> 415-822-8194
> From: David Fetter <da...@fetter.org>
> To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] SCOTUS says convicted felons have the right to sell their guns
>
> Dispossessing people of tools they used in perpetrating a crime has
> very, very long legal precedents. Are you proposing that those be
> overturned?
>
> Cheers,
> David.
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:03:52AM -0700, Craig Good wrote:
>> Kind of a no-brainer, unless one is a fan of robbery under law.
>>
>>
>> On May 18, 2015, at 16:26 PM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Supreme Court rendered a decision today in which it said that convicted felony gun owners have the right to determine to whom their forfeited firearms are transferred (sold). Elana Kagen wrote the unanimous opinion.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --Craig WWJGD?
>> clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com
>>
>> If I've told you once I've told you a million times... Don't
>> exaggerate!
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

Craig Good

unread,
May 19, 2015, 6:32:18 PM5/19/15
to Scott Hotes, Ipse Dixit
The state is “taking it away from you” in the sense that you won’t have it any more. But there’s no compelling state interest in taking ownership of it. That would be just straight up theft.


On May 19, 2015, at 15:14 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That sounds reasonable, as marijuana possession is not a violent crime. If instead you
> had been convicted of a violent crime, but it happened that you did not use this particular
> weapon in perpetrating the crime, would the state have some standing in taking it away from
> you? Does the state have some standing to disallow access of firearms to those convicted
> of violent crimes?


--
--Craig WWSJD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike,
especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from
this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every
occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced
by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men
disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder
true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Federal Farmer

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages