USA

Public Defender’s Second Amendment Argument Has Some Folks Up in Arms

Photo of JT Crenshaw JT Crenshaw2 hours ago
0 0 4 minutes read

Just a few months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 922(g)(3)’s prohibition on gun ownership by “unlawful” drug users violated the Second Amendment rights of an admitted marijuana user, while leaving the door open to future prosecutions under the same statute for users of harder drugs and perhaps even pot users who’ve demonstrated their dangerousness in other ways. 

There are a number of disqualifiers in Section 922, including Section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a felony or a crime punishable by more than a year in prison. Many states have similar laws in place, as does the District of Columbia. D.C.’s law is facing a legal challenge, and one that’s proving to be far more controversial than I would have thought it would be. 

It’s hardly unusual for defense attorneys to raise a Second Amendment claim, regardless of whether they’re a public defender or an attorney in private practice. And given the fact that Redman’s prohibited status is the result of a previous conviction for simply carrying a gun without a license, I’d say his public defender has a pretty strong case. The courts have been split on whether a blanket prohibition on gun ownership for all felons or those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison is constitutional, and the Supreme Court has sidestepped the issue to date, but there’s nothing unusual or objectionable about Redman’s attorneys arguing that the D.C. law violates his Second Amendment rights. 

Not everyone agrees. 

I was really surprised to see a lefty like Yglesias clutch his pearls over this. But lefties aren’t the only ones who have a problem with what Redman’s attorneys are doing. 

Moskos is a former Baltimore police officer who’s now a criminal justice professor, and he and I are often aligned on law and order issues. As I responded to him, though, I’m hardly a member of the progressive left, but I don’t believe everybody convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in jail should be prohibited from possessing a gun after they’ve done their time. 

I’m of the opinion that once someone’s completed their sentence all of their rights should be restored. But I also believe that many non-violent felonies or crimes punishable by more than a year in prison shouldn’t disqualify someone from owning a gun to begin with. Bryan Range lost his Second Amendment rights because he falsified his income on a food stamp application. Melynda Vincent lost hers because she wrote a bad check. I won’t call those offenses victimless crimes, but I don’t believe that either of those offenses indicate a propensity for violence or reveal the offenders as a danger to their community. 

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Range that Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to his case, and the federal government decided not to appeal that decision. The Tenth Circuit, however, upheld Vincent’s prohibited status, and the Supreme Court denied her cert petition last term. She can now avail herself of the DOJ’s new rights restoration process, which is great, but the fact that some felons can now petition to have their rights restored still doesn’t address the problem with the scope of 922(g)(1) and its conflict with the Second Amendment. 

I don’t know all of the details of Mr. Redman’s case, but if his sole felony conviction is for carrying a concealed firearm without a license (a practice that is perfectly legal in more than half the country), I don’t believe that justice is served by prohibiting him from lawfully possessing a firearm in the future. 

The good news is that Yglesias got a lot of pushback for his hot take, with many respondents pointing out that attorneys have a duty to represent their clients to the best of their ability. Even some fans of gun control took issue with his objections to a public defender doing their job. Second Amendment supporters also took Yglesias to task for wanting to see people stripped of their right to keep and bear arms because they did so without a government permission slip. 

I wish Glidden was right, but SCOTUS has had plenty of opportunities to take a 922(g)(1) case and so far the justices have declined to do so despite the split in the lower courts. 

Still, this should hardly be a controversial argument for a public defender to make, and the objections from both the Left and the Right were a bit of a wake-up call for me; a reminder that, no matter how logical an argument it might be, we still have a lot of work to do in educating the public about both the extent and the importance of our Second Amendment rights. 

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.



Read the full article here

Photo of JT Crenshaw JT Crenshaw2 hours ago
0 0 4 minutes read

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button