• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jonathon Turley: Gun-rights case tailor made for Justice Barrett, Supreme Court. Here’s why

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
17,927
Reaction score
10,823
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has issued an opinion over the right to bear arms that has received little attention, but it should.

...

The 3rd Circuit decision in Folajtar v. The Attorney General of the United States may be one of the most perfectly tailored cases for a major Supreme Court decision. Indeed, the only thing lacking from the 2-1 ruling is a mailing label directly to Justice Barrett. In ruling that a nonviolent tax conviction can result in the denial of gun ownership, the panel presents a clean case to further define the contours of the individual rights recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

The 3rd Circuit case concerns Lisa Folajtar who was denied the right to own a firearm. The reason was her pleading guilty in 2011 to willfully making a materially false statement on her tax returns. The plea led to a sentence of three years probation, including three months of home confinement, a $10,000 fine, and a $100 assessment. She also paid the IRS over $250,000 in back taxes, penalties and interest.

The case falls into the still grey area around the individual right articulated in 2008. The Supreme Court recognized that this is not an “unlimited” right under the Constitution while affirming the right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Moreover, the court ruled two years later that Heller “did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.’”

The question is whether this means any and all felons, even those never accused of violent acts.

...

There is a good-faith debate over whether this is an individual right, but the question raised by this case is whether, as an individual right, it can so easily be set aside – particularly under a law that preceded the Heller decision. Two justices are likely clearing their desks in anticipation of the arrival of this case from the 3rd Circuit.”

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gun-rights-case-supreme-court-barrett-jonathan-turley

Interesting piece by Jonathon Turley regarding this case from the 3rd Circuit that could make its way to the Supreme Court.
 
It should be interesting to see how this all plays out. Personally I am ok with a none violent felon having gun rights restored. Of course depending on the details.
 
You might want to read Kavanaugh's dissent for Heller II on the Constitutionality of long standing restrictions on felons owning guns.

I’d rather you post the pertinent excerpt but I’ll take a look when I get home. Too hard to read a document like on my phone.

Turley’s point is how Congress used to restrict gun ownership to violent felons, but that has changed over time to include all felons. I’m okay with non-violent felons having all of their rights restored upon the completion of their sentence and restitution.
 
I’d rather you post the pertinent excerpt but I’ll take a look when I get home. Too hard to read a document like on my phone.

Turley’s point is how Congress used to restrict gun ownership to violent felons, but that has changed over time to include all felons. I’m okay with non-violent felons having all of their rights restored upon the completion of their sentence and restitution.

" As to regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns, Heller similarly said the government may continue to impose regulations that are traditional, “longstanding” regulations in the United States. Id. at 626-27. In McDonald, the Court reiterated that “longstanding regulatory measures” are permissible. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3047 (2010) (controlling opinion of Alito, J.). Importantly, the Heller Court listed several examples of such longstanding (and therefore constitutionally permissible) regulations, such as laws against concealed carry and laws prohibiting possession of guns by felons. 554 U.S. at 626. "

That's one out of 13 times that Kavanaugh mentions felons in his dissent.
 
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has issued an opinion over the right to bear arms that has received little attention, but it should.

...

The 3rd Circuit decision in Folajtar v. The Attorney General of the United States may be one of the most perfectly tailored cases for a major Supreme Court decision. Indeed, the only thing lacking from the 2-1 ruling is a mailing label directly to Justice Barrett. In ruling that a nonviolent tax conviction can result in the denial of gun ownership, the panel presents a clean case to further define the contours of the individual rights recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

The 3rd Circuit case concerns Lisa Folajtar who was denied the right to own a firearm. The reason was her pleading guilty in 2011 to willfully making a materially false statement on her tax returns. The plea led to a sentence of three years probation, including three months of home confinement, a $10,000 fine, and a $100 assessment. She also paid the IRS over $250,000 in back taxes, penalties and interest.

The case falls into the still grey area around the individual right articulated in 2008. The Supreme Court recognized that this is not an “unlimited” right under the Constitution while affirming the right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Moreover, the court ruled two years later that Heller “did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.’”

The question is whether this means any and all felons, even those never accused of violent acts.

...

There is a good-faith debate over whether this is an individual right, but the question raised by this case is whether, as an individual right, it can so easily be set aside – particularly under a law that preceded the Heller decision. Two justices are likely clearing their desks in anticipation of the arrival of this case from the 3rd Circuit.”

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gun-rights-case-supreme-court-barrett-jonathan-turley

Interesting piece by Jonathon Turley regarding this case from the 3rd Circuit that could make its way to the Supreme Court.
Good thread but I disagree that there is a GOOD faith debate over an individual right.
 
Moreover, the court ruled two years later that Heller “did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.’”

The question is whether this means any and all felons, even those never accused of violent acts.

The court did not "rule" that in Heller. That was dicta. So there should be no real question about what that sentence means.

Most of our guns laws are totally nonsensical - it makes no sense that a person with a relatively minor non-violent felony conviction (like the one in this case) should be banned for life, but someone with a string of violence misdemeanors is not. That said, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's unconstitutional.
 
The court did not "rule" that in Heller. That was dicta. So there should be no real question about what that sentence means.

Most of our guns laws are totally nonsensical - it makes no sense that a person with a relatively minor non-violent felony conviction (like the one in this case) should be banned for life, but someone with a string of violence misdemeanors is not. That said, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's unconstitutional.
Honestly, all federal regulations on Firearms, save perhaps import issues, are unconstitutional. The idiotic use of the commerce clause is one of the major dishonest stains on our jurisprudential fabric
 
Honestly, all federal regulations on Firearms, save perhaps import issues, are unconstitutional. The idiotic use of the commerce clause is one of the major dishonest stains on our jurisprudential fabric

I'll give you that, but I think that ship has long ago sailed off the edge of the Earth.
 
What part of this partial quote of the 2A do you not understand?!
..., the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

First they came for violent felons' guns, then they came for violent ex-felons' guns, then they came for nonviolent ex-felons' guns ...
 
Last edited:
What part of this partial quote of the 2A do you not understand?!


First they came for the violent ex-felons' guns ...
Thanks to FDR and the Democrat lapdogs in the other two branches of office
 
Thanks to FDR and the Democrat lapdogs in the other two branches of office
I'll take "Nonsensical Non Sequiturs" for 10 million, Donald.
 
I'll take "Nonsensical Non Sequiturs" for 10 million, Donald.
Without FDR, the federal government could not have banned anyone from owning a gun
 
Now's when we see if the republicans are going to repay our giving them tax cuts for rich people.

Will the trump Supreme Court protect our gun rights?

Tax cuts for gun rights. Right?

That's the deal?
 
I enjoy seeing how Turley has become a public figure fighting for rights and reason. The left must absolutely hate him now.
its sort of like the fact that the GOP is now the party for working class people and small business owners and the Democrats are the party for rich globalist fat cats and the uber-elitists
 
Now's when we see if the republicans are going to repay our giving them tax cuts for rich people.

Will the trump Supreme Court protect our gun rights?

Tax cuts for gun rights. Right?

That's the deal?
you don't give rich people anything. its not Your money, It is theirs
 
its sort of like the fact that the GOP is now the party for working class people and small business owners and the Democrats are the party for rich globalist fat cats and the uber-elitists
It's like you believe that 95-plus percent of the federal D-R Team aren't corporate whores that sell you a line of rhetoric.
 
It's like you believe that 95-plus percent of the federal D-R Team aren't corporate whores that sell you a line of rhetoric.

many are. but the democrats are currently owned lock stock and barrel by big tech and the globalists
 
many are. but the democrats are currently owned lock stock and barrel by big tech and the globalists
It's like you believe that your small admission followed by a couple of buzzwords negates my comment that 95-plus percent of the federal D-R Team are corporate whores that sell you a line of rhetoric.
 
Will the trump Supreme Court protect our gun rights?
One running theory is the court has been afraid to take on any cases because Roberts was unlikely to secure gun rights beyond Heller and the conservative justices were afraid to take a case and have the court infringe on our rights.

With Barrett replacing Ginsburg it shouldn't matter much what Roberts will do and they're more likely to accept cases.
 
One running theory is the court has been afraid to take on any cases because Roberts was unlikely to secure gun rights beyond Heller and the conservative justices were afraid to take a case and have the court infringe on our rights.

With Barrett replacing Ginsburg it shouldn't matter much what Roberts will do and they're more likely to accept cases.
You are correct. Roberts has always had an attitude that state voters-who are subjected to stupid laws, deserve what they get. He has been loathe to overturn crap like "semi auto bans" and magazine restrictions in cases involving STATE laws such as Maryland, NY, and California. He is most likely not willing to allow the FEDERAL government to extend what he has hinted is an unconstitutional use of the commerce clause (which was evident in the ACA case). But Barrett is much more likely to strike down state laws. Besides, Scalia-in a dissent with Thomas-where the Supremes failed to take up a state ban on semi autos and normal capacity magazines, stated that HELLER clearly applies to semi auto rifles that were banned by I believe the state of Maryland in Judge King's idiotic rebuke of Heller. Since Barrett is a well known Scalia disciple, I suspect she will find the Thomas/Scalia rational almost controlling.
 
In my view, a person who commits a felony, no matter what kind, is just a bad person who also has horrible judgement and impulse control. That's the definition of someone who should not own a firearm. If a person like that makes another bad decision with a gun in their hand it could cost an innocent person their life.
 
In my view, a person who commits a felony, no matter what kind, is just a bad person who also has horrible judgement and impulse control. That's the definition of someone who should not own a firearm. If a person like that makes another bad decision with a gun in their hand it could cost an innocent person their life.
There's a pretty big leap between white collar crime and murder. There's a lot of research on what makes someone dangerous.
 
Back
Top Bottom