The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) has made some really interesting decisions over the last few years on a number of things, including guns with the Bruen decision. For those of us with more Constitutionalist viewpoints (such as supporting 2A rights), many of those decisions have been welcome and are long past due.
Recently, however, the court handed down a decision that some in the firearms community find concerning, whether due to a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment (which is the correct interpretation) or because of the potential for abuse.
Matthew Vadum gives us the details:
The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on May 23 in favor of the federal government in a case about how sentences under a federal three-strikes gun law should be imposed on defendants previously convicted of violent felonies or major drug offenses.Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in Brown v. United States, which was consolidated with Jackson v. United States. The vote did not break down along traditional conservative versus liberal ideological lines, with one liberal justice joining the majority and a conservative justice siding with dissenters.
Federal law prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms.
The often-litigated Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was enacted in 1984 in response to concerns that a small number of repeat offenders were committing a disproportionate number of crimes.
The law requires that a 15-year minimum sentence be imposed on people found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm who have three or more prior convictions for “a serious drug offense” or violent felonies such as burglary “committed on occasions different from one another.”
I have to admit that I’m of a mixed mind about this decision.
On the one hand, people who repeatedly commit violent crimes are people that have shown (and continue to show) that they are dangerous people who will almost certainly continue to do awful things with people. These are people who we don’t want out on the street.
On the other hand, I’m a Second Amendment purist. I don’t think that people lose their Second Amendment rights for any reason (so shouldn’t be criminally charged for just having a firearm).
I do think, though, that the solution to keeping people with violent tendencies in check is for those people to know that more and more (and, ideally, most) people are armed, trained, and willing to use force at a distance (a firearm) to prevent violent crimes. In other words, if people take up their Second Amendment rights and arm themselves instead of depending on law enforcement to be able to be there all of the time to protect them, then, would-be violent criminals would be less likely to act on those violent tendencies. After all, most of them aren’t wanting to leave the gene pool early.
But, maybe I’m wrong with some of my viewpoints. What do you think about this decision? Tell us below.
Okay ‘editor’ – a couple of points. 1) IF a person knowingly commits a felony level crime of violence using ANY tool (not just gunms) they do so knowing there are (or certainly should be) greater penalties than for a non-violent felony. 2) I don’t necessarily disagree with such a person being able to get their gun rights restored but remember, there are already mechanisms in place for them to do so. Using those mechanisms would demonstrate good faith on their part to become a productive member of civil society. Anything less than such an effort would get into the dangerous area of ‘blanket amnesty’.
BTW ‘gun crime’ is almost as ambiguous of a term as ‘gun violence’ – neither is done by the gun but the person wielding that gun.
I think a person who has committed “Violent” crimes should be locked up, then they would have no need for a weapon. But, if a person has committed a “Non-Violent” crime they should be allowed to own a
weapon to defend themselves. Violent people tend to have short tempers,which could be a problem
with them owning weapons, unless they were not weapons that would kill, but I guess that list would
include everything from ball bats to fists, so I don’t know what the answer is. A person who has a mind to
harm you can use just about anything to accomplish that goal.
As an ex LEO, having dealt with repeat offenders often, sometimes multiple times in a month, I feel that the repeat offender should be dealt with as harshly as the current law provides.
This is for the LEOs safety as well as the safety of the citizenry at large.
since when has a “burglary” been considered A VIOLENT CRIME??? most burglary’s are done when no one if home, so no way it even could be violent. under the authors own words copy and pasted here “a serious drug offense” or violent felonies such as burglary “committed on occasions different from one another.”
so if a house has sat abandoned for 30 years, and you find it in the woods, and push the door open, YOU HAVE NOW COMMITTED A VIOLENT FELONY !!! burglary’s are usually committed to gain access to a building in order to see if there is anything worth STEALING or not!
break a window on a building and crawl into the building, that is completely empty, and that is BURGLARY!
using his logic, if you buy groceries with a bad check, you just became a VIOLENT CRIMINAL!
I believe he’s referring to armed burglary of a person.
did the last appointment (the DIE one, that doesn’t know what a woman is) vote on this issue? Do We the People in Amerika even know IF she/it knows what a gun or weapon is? Was she/it asked?
Good point. She didn’t seem to understand firearms in a recent case.
Comments are closed.