Abandon hope all who enter the other 9th Circuit of hell:
Montana felons can no longer own firearms
BILLINGS – A new ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finds that Montana felons can no longer own firearms.
This federal decision overrules Montana law which allowed felons to conceal and carry after completing his or her sentence.
Under federal law, convicted felons can no longer own firearms, regardless of whether he or she served the sentence or probation.
This decision comes after convicted rapist Frank Van der hule served his 13 year sentence and attempted to purchase a firearm.
Before this ruling, Montana was considered a “restorative state,” meaning felons who served his or her sentence would have full rights restored – voting and owning firearms among them.
A judge ruled against this, preventing Van der hule from being able to purchase a firearm.
The new ruling by the 9th Circuit applies to felons convicted of both violent and nonviolent crimes.
An important detail is that this is a state by state decision, meaning a felon convicted in a “restorative state” could visit Montana and legally posses a firearm.
A concern here is that felons who served a sentence years ago may not realize they’re breaking the law by owning a firearm.
“For people who have been convicted of felonies in montana who maybe believed the could lawfully posses under federal law, this case says that’s not correct,” said Bill Mercer, former U.S. Attorney for District of Montana.
And where Lt. Kevin Iffland said this ruling won’t necessarily make the police department’s job any easier, but it will help with consistency.
“What it does is it makes it at least consistent for us, so if we run someone to determine if they have a felony – it’s very consistent for us to make the determination, rather than ‘ok did they serve all their time – are they still on papers? Is there sentencing that’s left?’ or anything like that,” said Iffland.
This ruling has the biggest impact on the felon’s future ability to purchase firearms, as well as if they are arrested for another crime.
Source: http://www.kxlf.com/news/montana-felons-can-no-longer-own-firearms/
Now I’m not an enthusiastic supporter of the 2nd Amendment rights of felons, it’s hard enough to defend the law-abiding to put my energies on fighting for the former law-breaking, but the truth must be said.
The Montanan law was a good law, it allowed former bad people to rehabilitate themselves, live like citizens once again, and let’s face it, why would a criminal buy their guns at the gun store? That’s like calling 911 to let them know you’re planning to rob a bank.
Truth is people should be judged for their actions. Buying a gun should never be a crime, we used to buy them in the mail for crying out loud.
[…] Go read this article… […]
If Federal law “over-rules” state law, then look to the US Constitution for the answer: Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 3 “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Pretty clear to me the 9th circus is attempting to “pass ex post facto law” by FIAT. Article 1 Section 1, first sentence “All legislative Powers HEREIN granted shall be vested in a Congress…” No mention here of courts or executives making law! Montana joined the Union under “contract”, which includes that felons have their rights restored. The 10th Amendment applies here.
Interesting….does that then mean all of their other civil rights are gone too…like due process, freedom of speech, etc…let’s have this pos lib court be consistent with their buffoonery.
In Saudi Arabia the first time they catch a thief they amputate his left hand, the second time he loses his right hand. Our 9th circuit is doing something similar here, but like I said, felons are not going to find a lot of people willing to fight for them. Can you imagine the headlines if the NRA took their cause? “The NRA defends criminals” would scream every newspaper. They can’t afford that kind of publicity.
And yet you hear NO screaming when the ACLU demands return of rights to felons, rapists, arsonists, child molesters, and “equality” for members of NAMBLA, which is a group dedicated to the buggery of minors, specifically males – not unlike in that religion of peace, Islam…
Can we say “Bill of Attainder,” as in Prohibited by the U.S. Constitution?
It used to be if one fully served their punishment, that was it (and as it should be).
Agreed…