Heller and Bruen make it clear - How can we deny fugitive felons their guns?

[pdq]

…understandably asks the defense lawyer of this fugitive felon drug dealer, sounding much like some posters on this board:

Corey J. Benton, 33, of Hamtramck, Michigan, was arrested in February following an hours-long standoff with Kentucky State Police at a residence on 7th Street in Grayson.

… Three months later, Benton was indicted on the federal level on five total counts of distributing substances, one count of using or carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

These laws must be enforced to the letter!

However, Benton's attorney, Sebastian M. Joy, [says] Benton's gun charges must be dismissed due to new standards set last June in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen.

…In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that "for firearm regulation to be constitutional, it must be consistent with this nation's history of firearm regulation."

[But, says this lawyer, echoing the SCOTUS’ recent contentions] "A statute that can only trace its origins back to 1938 (referencing the Federal Firearms Act of 1938) is surely not consistent with this nation's history of firearm regulation.

Also, they didn’t even have fentanyl in 1793! Checkmate, libtards! The “modern” 85 year old law (yes, he said “modern”) referred to above is clearly too recent to qualify as part of this nation’s history of firearm regulation. And what if this law limiting the use or carrying of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime was passed after 1938? Throw it out! It’s unconstitutional!

:RollingEyesSmiley5:

"There is no circumstances under which it is constitutional to permanently deprive an American citizen of a right guaranteed to him by the Constitution," Joy wrote.

How about voting? Lots of states limit felons voting rights. Unconstitutional! How about freedom, like being free to move around driving a car? Most/all states limit that in a variety of circumstances. Unconstitutional! Or if you beat and threaten your ex, how can they tell you you can’t make contact with or threaten her? That’s freedom of speech! You’ve got that, restraining order or not! Doesn’t incarceration itself infringe on liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How can they even do that?

Previous rulings pertaining to gun ownership, specifically District of Columbia v. Heller, determined… "statutes containing prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for purpose of immediate self-defense violated (the) Second Amendment," Joy wrote.

Even when the people you’re defending yourself against are the Kentucky State Police. Why not?

"The Supreme Court recognized that the founders of this nation believed that it was not only the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms, but that it is also necessary to a free society that 'the people' do so," the argument includes, not just members of an armed militia.

In fact, just forget all that blather about militias! Just forget it! It doesn’t mean anything, and besides, who cares? It is clearly necessary for everyone to keep and bear arms. How can you deprive this right held by this man, even if he is a fugitive felon drug dealer that sells fentanyl-laced poisons?

Well?

[Acer]

We had been interpreting the 2nd amendment wrong for 239 years? How embarrassing!

[Racer X]

the lawyer can try, but the law is clear. He was convicted of a violent felony crime prior, thus being in possession illegally is a slam dunk.

I think the huge fight is over whether he can be hit with all the enhancements to those other felonies because he did them while prohibited with a firearm. He is still going to do a lot of time if he is convicted, regardless of the felony possession charge.

[mattkime]

I wonder if I could file a lawsuit for deprivation of my 2nd amendment rights for a felony I am planning but have not yet committed.

[Racer X]

filing isn't the issue. The clerk will gladly take your papers and your money.

[pdq]

Smote wrote:
the lawyer can try, but the law is clear. He was convicted of a violent felony crime prior, thus being in possession illegally is a slam dunk.

Is it?

While the United States has yet to file a response to the defense's motion, in February, Chief Judge Danny C. Reeves dismissed gun possession charges following the Bruen decision in a separate matter.

[Racer X]

Acer wrote:
We had been interpreting the 2nd amendment wrong for 239 years? How embarrassing!

It was ratified in 1791, and Heller clarified and codified its meaning in 2008. That's 217 years. how embarrassing for you. :facepalm:

if you want a refresher, check my signature...... top 2 lines.