Question Regarding a felony

[hopedale]

Yes and no.

Texas Penal Code Sec 46.04 allows for a person with a felony conviction to possess a firearm on the premises where he lives, five years after the disposition of his conviction.
However, federal law does not allow for a convicted felon to possess a firearm under any circumstances, unless he has been pardoned.
“As I tell my students, it’s very simple,” said KHOU-11 legal analyst and South Texas Law School professor Gerald Treece. “Federal law always trumps state and local laws in terms of conflict.”

Sorry if this question high jacks this thread, but let me ask. If the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, how does anyone lose thier 2nd ammend right?

Do i want to see felons armed? No, but it has never made sense to me.

I can see if someone is convicted and offered paroll on the condition they wave their right to keep and bare arms. But one that person has paid their restitution and is a free person, shouldn't they gain all their rights back?

[Lost10mm]

I figure if the state trusts you to be in public, then they should trust you to be able to hunt and defend yourself with a firearm.


And the Constitution should Trump all.

[tvc184]

Sorry if this question high jacks this thread, but let me ask. If the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, how does anyone lose thier 2nd ammend right?

Do i want to see felons armed? No, but it has never made sense to me.

I can see if someone is convicted and offered paroll on the condition they wave their right to keep and bare arms. But one that person has paid their restitution and is a free person, shouldn't they gain all their rights back?

There is actually a case, I think in the 2nd Circuit Court out of NY, to restore firearm rights to non-violent offenders. I believe there is a good chance that it might end up in front of SCOTUS.

[tvc184]

I figure if the state trusts you to be in public, then they should trust you to be able to hunt and defend yourself with a firearm.


And the Constitution should Trump all.

The Constitution does trump all. The unpopular answer is in Article III, Section 2 of that same Constitution which says that if there is a question about what the Constitution means, the Supreme Court of the United States gets to make the decision.

It goes like this….

Person 1: I believe in the Constitution 100% with no exceptions!

Person 2: What about Article III, Section 2 that says the Supreme Court gets to decide what is right?

Person 1: I don’t believe in that part of the Constitution!

*****

Constitution for the United States of America

Article III, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish……..

Article III, Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made……

[RJH1]

There is actually a case, I think in the 2nd Circuit Court out of NY, to restore firearm rights to non-violent offenders. I believe there is a good chance that it might end up in front of SCOTUS.

Have there been any other of these cases that have been ruled against previously? Or any that allow felons to regain their gun and maybe their voting rights after 5 years or something, like Texas apparently does for guns?

I have always thought once people did their time they should get their rights back, but I don't make the laws

[tvc184]

Have there been any other of these cases that have been ruled against previously? Or any that allow felons to regain their gun and maybe their voting rights after 5 years or something, like Texas apparently does for guns?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/658

I have always thought once people did their time they should get their rights back, but I don't make the laws

It took a while to find it. It is the Third Circuit and not the Second Circuit.

The case is Range v. Garland (AG Merrick Garland).

Range was convicted, I think on food stamp fraud, about 28 years ago. Even though it is a nonviolent felony, Range lost his Second Amendment rights.

In light of the Bruen decision last year, several federal judges have been making rulings favorable to gun rights proponents. In Range v. Garland however, Range lost in his appeal to the Third Circuit.



But…..

The step below the Supreme Court are the circuit courts. Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana for example, are in the Fifth Circuit out of New Orleans. The circuit courts might have 15 or more judges assigned. Appeals cases that we always hear about are typically only heard in front of a three judge panel. In a way you can say that how a circuit court rules depends on which three judges you happen to draw. So a three judge panel issues a ruling and unless overturned by the Supreme Court, that ruling stands.

Unless….

It is not that often done but there is a procedure where the circuit court overrules itself. It is called an en banc (on bonk) decision. The entire circuit court can vote to hear a case en banc. That means the entire circuit court (with maybe 15 to 18 judges) will hear the case and take it away from the three judge panel. That is rarely done however it does happen. I don’t remember how many but there’s a certain number of judges that have to vote to hear the case like maybe eight out of 15 judges might vote to hear the case in front of the entire court. Normally, you would not think that would happen if most of the judges agree with a three judge panel.

In Range v. Garland the three judge panel voted that even non-violent felons lose their right to possess firearms for a lifetime. The Third Circuit however, voted to hear the case en banc. Just guessing, enough judges disagreed with the ruling and they are now forcing it in front of the entire circuit. Just from history, it seems to me that there is a good chance that the en banc decision will overturn the three judge panel. That means there is a good likelihood that fairly soon a United States circuit court will rule that only violent felons can have the rights terminated for life. This would conflict with the Ninth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit who ruled the opposite. If that happens, what it does is set up a likely showdown in front of the Supreme Court since you would have part of the nation not restricting gun rights to nonviolent felons and part of the nation doing so.

Looking at the several rulings by judges that have come out since last June after Bruen and looking at the Supreme Court verbally spanking the Second Circuit a few days ago, it seems that the Supreme Court might be poised to make some sweeping rulings on the Second Amendment.

I don’t know if any cases on the voting rights being restored and I’m not sure that is the same. Unlike the Second Amendment, I don’t know if there’s any amendment guarantees the right to vote. There are amendments guaranteeing that minorities, women and 18-year-old can vote but I don’t think that’s in the same category as shall not be infringed out of the Second Amendment.

And while Texas law allows a convicted felon to have a firearm in his home or on his premises after five years, federal law does not recognize that exemption.

[RJH1]

It took a while to find it. It is the Third Circuit and not the Second Circuit.

The case is Range v. Garland (AG Merrick Garland).

Range was convicted, I think on food stamp fraud, about 28 years ago. Even though it is a nonviolent felony, Range lost his Second Amendment rights.

In light of the Bruen decision last year, several federal judges have been making rulings favorable to gun rights proponents. In Range v. Garland however, Range lost in his appeal to the Third Circuit.



But…..

The step below the Supreme Court are the circuit courts. Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana for example, are in the Fifth Circuit out of New Orleans. The circuit courts might have 15 or more judges assigned. Appeals cases that we always hear about are typically only heard in front of a three judge panel. In a way you can say that how a circuit court rules depends on which three judges you happen to draw. So a three judge panel issues a ruling and unless overturned by the Supreme Court, that ruling stands.

Unless….

It is not that often done but there is a procedure where the circuit court overrules itself. It is called an en banc (on bonk) decision. The entire circuit court can vote to hear a case en banc. That means the entire circuit court (with maybe 15 to 18 judges) will hear the case and take it away from the three judge panel. That is rarely done however it does happen. I don’t remember how many but there’s a certain number of judges that have to vote to hear the case like maybe eight out of 15 judges might vote to hear the case in front of the entire court. Normally, you would not think that would happen if most of the judges agree with a three judge panel.

In Range v. Garland the three judge panel voted that even non-violent felons lose their right to possess firearms for a lifetime. The Third Circuit however, voted to hear the case en banc. Just guessing, enough judges disagreed with the ruling and they are now forcing it in front of the entire circuit. Just from history, it seems to me that there is a good chance that the en banc decision will overturn the three judge panel. That means there is a good likelihood that fairly soon a United States circuit court will rule that only violent felons can have the rights terminated for life. This would conflict with the Ninth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit who ruled the opposite. If that happens, what it does is set up a likely showdown in front of the Supreme Court since you would have part of the nation not restricting gun rights to nonviolent felons and part of the nation doing so.

Looking at the several rulings by judges that have come out since last June after Bruen and looking at the Supreme Court verbally spanking the Second Circuit a few days ago, it seems that the Supreme Court might be poised to make some sweeping rulings on the Second Amendment.

I don’t know if any cases on the voting rights being restored and I’m not sure that is the same. Unlike the Second Amendment, I don’t know if there’s any amendment guarantees the right to vote. There are amendments guaranteeing that minorities, women and 18-year-old can vote but I don’t think that’s in the same category as shall not be infringed out of the Second Amendment.

And while Texas law allows a convicted felon to have a firearm in his home or on his premises after five years, federal law does not recognize that exemption.

Thanks! I appreciate the info. Will be interesting to see where it goes

[Dale Moser]

I hope he's able to work something out where he can go hunting with a rifle if he chooses. It seems like there ought to be an easier means for such a thing after a man's debt to society has been payed, and particularly after so much time has passed without issue.

Crossbow is a good place to start.

[Hogmauler]

I hope he's able to work something out where he can go hunting with a rifle if he chooses. It seems like there ought to be an easier means for such a thing after a man's debt to society has been payed, and particularly after so much time has passed without issue.

Crossbow is a good place to start.

This is exactly what I was thinking. If he’s non violent, a productive member of society, and has paid his debt, why continue to punish a person. Restore him. I’d start the cheap way b y writing the governor’s office. They may be able to shed light on the procedure.

[Huntsman27]

I know of a gentleman who had a felony theft charge and received pre-trial diversion, successfully completed the program and had his record expunged within 6 or so months of completing the program. His attorney filed the paperwork for him and charged him $1,500 for it. I think the attorney gives a little bit of a break for those he represents.

[RR 314]

I know of a gentleman who had a felony theft charge and received pre-trial diversion, successfully completed the program and had his record expunged within 6 or so months of completing the program. His attorney filed the paperwork for him and charged him $1,500 for it. I think the attorney gives a little bit of a break for those he represents.

The difference is with a pre-trial diversion he was never convicted of a felony.

[brokeno]

Depends how he voted

[tvc184]

The difference is with a pre-trial diversion he was never convicted of a felony.

Yep.

Record expunged or not, it isn’t a conviction.

It is the same with deferred adjudication.

[Froggy]

Al little off topic question for the LEO's on here.

Even though someone is no billed by a grand jury does their arrest still show up when you run their license?

I know someone who was arrested in 1972 for pot/weed possession with less than an ounce. It was a felony charge back then. He was no billed by the grand jury and swears it still shows up as an arrest.

[tvc184]

Al little off topic question for the LEO's on here.

Even though someone is no billed by a grand jury does their arrest still show up when you run their license?

I know someone who was arrested in 1972 for pot/weed possession with less than an ounce. It was a felony charge back then. He was no billed by the grand jury and swears it still shows up as an arrest.

Criminal history shows arrests and convictions.

A criminal history doesn’t show up on a driver’s license check. It has to be specially run and there is supposed to be a justification for it.