I would like to see non-violent felons get their second amendment right back. Even if there is a 7 year waiting period. We all were young and dumb but as we get older we mature.
19 Likes
I would also even add to that non violence offenders should not have to add that to work applications too so they can continue to contribute to society
As well as being able to carry a gun
5 Likes
First time drug offenders should also have a clear path to get their voting rights reinstated.
2 Likes
Mr. Easton, you might want to read the First Amended Complaint in Stone v. Garland, et al; Case. No. 4:23 cv 04637; in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (if you want a copy send me an email at [email protected]). Sometimes it’s the government that makes the mistake. Years ago, Plaintiff was accused of misusing a company check to pay a doctor $93 for his emergency medical care. Texas grossly over-criminalized a law regarding misuse of a check. Such misuse was a felony even if the check was for a penny. Later, Texas revised the law and made misuse of a check for less than $100 a Class C misdemeanor, which in Texas is the same as an overtime parking ticket - not a felony, just a fine-only offense.
The tragedy of being convicted of any felony offense lies in the fact that every felony conviction regardless of the circumstances, carries with it a life-long burden of “collateral consequences.” Estimates of the number of these various collateral consequences range from 2500 to over 45,000. Many of those consequences are created by government statutes, but the courts today pretend those consequences are not part of the “punishment” for the underlying crime. They reach that conclusion in order to escape the plain violation of the Eight Amendment’s “proportionality” requirement – “the punishment must fit the crime.” But these collateral consequences last a lifetime and are far more onerous than any jail time or fine imposed for the underlying criminal offense. They affect such things as government housing, welfare, student loans, mortgage credit, …and most significantly, “employment”. Some also affect the basic constitutional rights of the offender. For example, 18 USC 922(g)(1) makes it a serious federal felony for anyone to possess a firearm if they have been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in prison (i.e. a felony). Plaintiff in Stone v. Garland addresses his loss of his gun rights for an offense that was mis-classified as a felony and subsequently downgraded to a misdemeanor. However, there is case similar to yours on file in Pennsylvania, called Range v. Attorney General (en banc) (3rd Cir. 2013). 30 years ago, Range forgot to tell a welfare clerk about some lawn mowing income he had while he was applying for food stamps. He was charged and convicted of a misdemeanor, but in Pennsylvania at the time his offense had a range of punishment exceeding one year, hence Range lost his right to possess a gun or go hunting for the rest of his life. Range claimed that the federal felon-in-possession law, as applied to him, violated the Second Amendment because he was a non-violent person. Stone makes the same claim in his case in Houston. Range eventually won his case on appeal to the Third Circuit; however, Merrick Garland (the US Attorney General) appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, and last month the US Supreme Court took the coward’s way out. They refused to hear the case and issue an opinion telling the country if the Second Amendment protects non-violent felons. That’s about the fifth time the Supremes have dodged that issue. Instead, the Supreme Court granted Garland’s appeal, reversed the opinion of the entire 3rd Circuit, and remanded the case back to the 3rd Circuit to reconsider its earlier opinion in light of a new gun-rights decision issued by the Supreme Court in Rahimi v. Garland … a case that had absolutely nothing to do with non-violent felons.
In short, Guy, the whole question of the constitutional rights of felons - especially non-violent felons - is still up in the air. However, Merrick Garland is about to get fired by Donald Trump. The new AG will most likely have a more favorable view of gun rights. We will see.
Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court is arguably populated by cowards and part-time idiots, the real problem lies in the fact that legislatures - both federal and states - are free to enact stupid laws and classify them as felonies (Texas actually has a felony littering law). At the same time, those legislatures are free to enact laws that impose collateral consequences on anyone who violates one of those stupid felony law … and the combined result is a lifetime of major social disability on that individual. The process is particularly offensive when legislatures enact laws that combine to strip a citizen of a basic constitutional right. I call that the “Texas Two Step”, and thus far our courts have found nothing wrong with giving citizens a life sentence for spitting on the sidewalk so to speak.
You might want to check out the ABA (American Bar Association). They have been working on the issue of perpetual collateral consequences. They are opposed to the imposition of such harsh penalties for petty offenses in general. I think there are other organizations working on the problem - check the ACLU, for instance.
Well, thanks for raising the issue, and good luck with your case.
John D. Stone
1 Like
Yes I agree, especially if you are a non-violent felon or first time offender.
1 Like
As a non violent offender there’s a chance to get expunged as long as no other criminal acts have been added
not on the federal level…even for a non violent felony
You’re right, Michael … but stay tuned. I am filing a Texas state-law expunction case in federal court based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005). Grable held federal courts have federal-question subject matter jurisdiction to hear state-law cases if a critical question of interpretation of federal law is involved, and that issue is essential to resolving the state-law case. My non-violent client wants to own a gun. Today, no one in America can say with certainty if the Second Amendment protects non-violent felons such as Marth Stewart, General Michael Flynn, or President Trump. We’ll see if the court will dodge the case or accept the challenge. Wish us luck.