Felon Wins Right to Own Firearms

[50CalRay]

Now here is a very interesting case. I know this is split question in the gun community where some believe convicted Felons loose their Second Amendment Rights while others believe a person should never loose a right. Well it seems a North Carolina court has rule in favor of one Felon being allowed Second Amendment Rights.

Felon wins the right to own a gun

Narrow ruling causes big stir
BY SARAH OVASKA - Staff Writer
Published: Tue, Sep. 01, 2009 03:28AM
Modified Tue, Sep. 01, 2009 03:30AM

RALEIGH -- A state law barring felons from owning firearms unfairly prevented a Garner man from owning guns, the N.C. Supreme Court ruled Friday, thrusting the court into the national debate over gun ownership.
The opinion applied only to Barney Britt, who was convicted of a drug crime in 1979, and it didn't have an immediate effect on the thousands of other felons in the state. Criminal defense lawyers who practice in federal courts said they don't know what effect, if any, the opinion will have on federal rules, which prevent felons from buying and owning weapons except when a state has restored that right.

The ruling authored by Justice Edward Thomas Brady held that Britt should be able to own guns and that the state unfairly took away his right to own a firearm with a 2004 law that barred felons from owning firearms. Britt was convicted in 1979 of selling Quaalude pills, but he didn't have any further tangles with the law.

Felon wins the right to own a gun - Local & State - News & Observer

[50CalRay]

Related article:

Court restores gun rights to felon, some worry about precedent set
September 1, 6:44 AMCleveland Gun Rights ExaminerDaniel White


The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that Barney Britt, who was convicted of selling Quaalude pills in 1979, could have his gun rights restored.

In 1987, Britt petitioned the court for restoration of his rights after keeping his record clean for eight years and his petition was granted. In 2004, despite no further infractions on his part, he lost those rights again in the wake of a new, tougher state law regarding ex-felons. Britt again went to court and after a four-year battle successfully argued that the new law is too broad and has no allowances for restoration of rights for non-felons, a process that exists in many states.

Gun control advocates fear this could open the door for violent felons to be allowed to have guns, yet this has not been a problem in any of the many states, including Ohio, where such a process exists.

Federal law mandates that those convicted of a felony lose their right to own a firearm unless State law has a process to restore those rights. The process involves going to court and convincing a judge that you had a one-time indiscretion and have earned the right to a second chance. Generally, you only get one "do over" and only for non-violent offenses. We're not talking about hardened criminals, these are people who did something stupid, usually when they were young adults, and have paid their debt to society and been good citizens ever since.

Court restores gun rights to felon, some worry about precedent set

[NotCaliforniaLegal]

That's... interesting I have no idea what to think.

[UncleMike]

I don't believe that ANYONE convicted of a violent felony, or a felony involving sex with a minor, should have their firearms rights returned. The whole idea of appropriate punishment hinges on the knowledge that if someone commits such a crime they FORFEIT some of their rights permanently. I believe that the framers of The Constitution, almost half of whom were lawyers, held that an individual has certain rights so long as they don't violate the rights of others. To violate another's rights shows that you have contempt for those rights and are not deserving of their (the rights) protection.
As for non violent felonies I believe that each case should be judged on its own merits.
Mike

[Semiauto]

Originally Posted by UncleMike

I don't believe that ANYONE convicted of a violent felony, or a felony involving sex with a minor, should have their firearms rights returned. The whole idea of appropriate punishment hinges on the knowledge that if someone commits such a crime they FORFEIT some of their rights permanently. I believe that framers of The Constitution, almost half of whom were lawyers, held that an individual has certain rights so long as they don't violate the rights of others. To violate another's rights shows that you have contempt for those rights and are not deserving of their (the rights) protection.
As for non violent felonies I believe that each case should be judged on its own merits.
Mike

Thanks,

I was hoping you would reply Mike seeing how you're retired Law Enforcement. When it comes to this issue I really feel the same way. Violent offenders has already demonstrated in my opinion that they can't be trusted with something like a firearm. Now low level non violent offenders has always been some what of a struggle with me. I honestly would not like to be a juror member in something like the above mentioned case.

[40XD]

I fell somewhat the same way. I think that there should be some way to earn your rights back. I'm not sure how to do it but, say you know a 50 year old man that when he was 18 he killed a friend in a car accedent. he was convicted of a felony but it has nothing to do with a gun, just an accedent 32 years ago.

some people should be shot on sight, but others should get a pass on some of these laws. just my 2 pennies.

[gturner140]

There is a plethora of ludicrous local, county and state felony laws on our books. Obviously, anyone in this situation should have never lost the right.