The fact that nonviolent criminals who have paid their debt to society can lose their Second Amendment-protected rights for the rest of their lives has long been a bone of contention for many gun-rights advocates.
A case in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is challenging the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by people convicted of crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, regardless of the nature of that crime. And two gun-rights organizations recently filed a brief with that court in the case U.S. v. Duarte, which addresses the issue.
On September 24, the National Rifle Organization (NRA) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a joint brief in the case arguing that the lifetime ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Brandon Combs, FPC president, said in a news release that his organization is seeking to overturn the injustice put upon the plaintiff and thousands of other nonviolent offenders.
“It is unconstitutional and immoral for the government to forever disarm people like Mr. Duarte, who committed a non-violent crime, served his time and successfully reentered society,” Combs said. “We will continue to fight to eliminate gun control laws like the one at issue in this case and restore the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable people. We thank our friends at the NRA and its counsel for their hard work and partnership on this important brief.”
In the brief, NRA and FPC argue that there is no historical evidence—the second requirement of the Bruen standard—for instituting a lifetime ban on nonviolent citizens.
“America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation allows for the disarmament of dangerous persons—disaffected persons posing a threat to the government and persons with a proven proclivity for violence,” the brief argues. “But there is no historical tradition of disarming peaceable citizens. Rather, peaceable citizens—including nonviolent felons and other unvirtuous persons—were expressly permitted and often required to keep and bear arms.”
Further explaining how the law violates the Bruen standard, the brief states: “Historically, no individual was disarmed because the law they violated was classified as a felony. Moreover, upon completing their sentences, offenders not only had full Second Amendment rights, but able-bodied males were required to keep and bear arms under the state and federal militia acts.”
In a news item announcing the brief, NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action wrote that the brief fully explains why that law should be struck down.
“The amicus brief provides an extensive historical analysis of firearm prohibitions from colonial America through the nineteenth century,” the story stated. “It emphasizes that America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation allows for the disarmament of dangerous persons—disaffected persons posing a threat to the government and persons with a proven proclivity for violence. But there is no historical tradition of disarming peaceable citizens.”
Read full article here
