• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Lawyer [William Louis Poss] challenges lifetime gun ban for felons. MJS' Vilmetti

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/105208759.html
MJS' Vilmetti said:
Wisconsin's law banning all felons from ever possessing a gun violates the 2nd Amendment, according to a lawyer for a man who has challenged the long-standing prohibition.

Assistant Public Defender William Louis Poss, of Black River Falls, makes the argument in a motion to dismiss a felon in possession charge against Daniel Rueden of Spencer.
[...]
Poss recently won a Clark County trial court ruling that Wisconsin's ban on concealed weapons is unconstitutional, citing some of the same cases he uses in Rueden's case.

[...]

As in that case, Poss cites recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that expressly extended to the states the 2nd Amendment's right to keep guns. The cases, from 2008 and 2010, overturned gun bans in Washington, D.C. and Chicago.

Poss argues that states can't deny a fundamental right completely, for life, without the law passing strict scrutiny, that is, it must justified by a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to protec that interest, and be the least restrictive means of protecting it.

The argument goes like this: the ban denies all felons, no matter the nature of their offense, or long ago it occurred or how law-ablding they have been since. Therefore, it is overbroad, and improper.
 

metalman383

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
282
Location
Eau Claire WI, ,
I think there should be different classifications of felonies. My good friend, who is 35 now, got busted with a fairly good amount of pot, when he was 19. He paid huge fines, and sat two months in jail. He is now barred from possesing a firearm for life. He has no other records. He loves hunting, but can only do it with a bow, and of course he can't vote. Should a non-violent, dumb move as a kid, keep him from protecting his wife and three little girls for life?
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I think there should be different classifications of felonies. My good friend, who is 35 now, got busted with a fairly good amount of pot, when he was 19. He paid huge fines, and sat two months in jail. He is now barred from possesing a firearm for life. He has no other records. He loves hunting, but can only do it with a bow, and of course he can't vote. Should a non-violent, dumb move as a kid, keep him from protecting his wife and three little girls for life?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think the answer; at least initially, is specific due process to have the right disabled. That is; it is something else the jury must decide in a trial. This would keep it from being an automatic. Secondly, one must be able to petition to have the right restored.

In the case in question. A man is found guilty for writing a bad check but the jury decides that he shouldn't have his 2A rights revoked because the crime was not violent and had nothing to do with firearms.

A second example would be a person who is found guilty of assault and the jury decided he should have his rights disabled. A number of years later, after proving his responsibility to society, there is no reason that he shouldn't be able to have his rights restored.
 
Last edited:

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
Should a citizen with demonstrated bad judgement be allowed to vote?

If that was the case and equal in it's application the government could say "well you're obese and obviously have no self control and your judgment is skewed. You should not be allowed to carry or use a firearm, drive a vehicle or vote."

I don't believe that's far off from where liberals would like to be in the future.
 

Walt_Kowalski

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
354
Location
Ashburn, Virginia, USA
A right is a right. I think that the law restricting felonious possession of firearm is plain STUPID. Its not like the unreformed violent felons that want a gun, can't get one anyways. A reformed felon should have the right to protect his family as much as a citizen...

...want to make a law? Then make a law that says previously convicted felons, that commit a crime with a firearm, are subject to mandatory prison time of X (and it better be hard labor)
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
A right is a right. I think that the law restricting felonious possession of firearm is plain STUPID. Its not like the unreformed violent felons that want a gun, can't get one anyways. A reformed felon should have the right to protect his family as much as a citizen...

...want to make a law? Then make a law that says previously convicted felons, that commit a crime with a firearm, are subject to mandatory prison time of X (and it better be hard labor)

Yes - it is a slippery slope that many don't want to address simply because it doesn't concern them. Or so they think.
 
Top