Felons-in-possession must know they are felons

[MechAg94]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-felons-in-possession-must-know-they-are-felons/

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/supreme-court-upholds-reform-in-1986-firearms-owners-protection-act/#axzz5tC9mhUfr

I must have missed this story recently.  I came across the ammoland article and got confused.   It appears that if someone is prosecuted for having a gun when they are a prohibited person, the prosecutor now has to show that they knew they were a prohibited person.  On the surface, I kind of like that.  I see it as forcing prosecutors to clearly notify someone (such as a misdemeanor domestic charge) that they are now a prohibited person.  On the other hand, it is opening up some wiggle room and making it harder to convict solely on the gun charge.  

Overall, I don't care for the prohibited persons categories anyway so this doesn't bother me.  I guess I will see what y'all thing. 

[MikeB]

I go back and forth, but generally I’d like to see prohibition to be more time limited. I tend to see the idea behind prohibiting someone who has a long historical record of assaults for example, but if they are really a danger maybe they shouldn’t be roaming free. I disagree completely with lifetime prohibition for someone caught with a joint while young or other poor decision.

I think depending on the severity and age of said crimes prohibitions should probably expire. Even if someone committed armed robbery at age 20, spent 10 years in prison and never got in trouble again should they really still be prohibited at age 50? Realistically the prohibition only applies to someone who will follow the law anyway.

Of course as for the decision I generally agree and think more crimes should require that someone knowingly committed said crime and it was in fact a crime. Too many laws nowadays for anyone to realistically know them all.

[brimic]

As time goes on, I suspect that future 'crimes' such as  making wrongspeech on social media (almost certainly retroactively applied) will eventually make a person prohibited from firearm possession or ownership.

[MikeB]

As time goes on, I suspect that future 'crimes' such as  making wrongspeech on social media (almost certainly retroactively applied) will eventually make a person prohibited from firearm possession or ownership.

They are already trying that. There have been proposals requiring people to turn over social media information to get a gun license. Obviously then the authorities would scour the social media accounts for reasons to deny said license.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/04/gun-license-sen-kevin-parker-says-social-media-check-required/2200158002/

[Firethorn]

I'm reminded of an incident I read about in Reader's Digest over 20 years ago.

Okay, I don't remember everything, but I'll set it up as best as I can.

The location was Washington DC, it was a heavily travelled road, but there was construction going on. 

A number of people, confused by the construction and detour signs, turned into a restricted area. 

The guards at the restricted area were issuing tickets, for trespassing.  The fine was something like $200.

Here's the deal:  Standard ticket thing.  By paying the ticket you were pleading guilty*.  HOWEVER, the code that the guards were using?  It was felony trespassing.  It might have been something else.

In short, many people, without representation with a lawyer, without ever being arrested, appearing in court, seeing a judge, without having their rights read to them, pled guilty to a felony by mail.

It wasn't discovered until one guy was trying for a security clearance/background check and he got asked why he hadn't disclosed that he was a feloon.  Investigation occurred, and it was eventually figured out.

The good news was that, many thousands in lawyer fees later, that a judge decided that the state had failed in its duties to inform the accused of just what they were pleading guilty to, and lowered it to the equivalent of a citation, not a felony.

[MechAg94]

I go back and forth, but generally I’d like to see prohibition to be more time limited. I tend to see the idea behind prohibiting someone who has a long historical record of assaults for example, but if they are really a danger maybe they shouldn’t be roaming free. I disagree completely with lifetime prohibition for someone caught with a joint while young or other poor decision.

I think depending on the severity and age of said crimes prohibitions should probably expire. Even if someone committed armed robbery at age 20, spent 10 years in prison and never got in trouble again should they really still be prohibited at age 50? Realistically the prohibition only applies to someone who will follow the law anyway.

Of course as for the decision I generally agree and think more crimes should require that someone knowingly committed said crime and it was in fact a crime. Too many laws nowadays for anyone to realistically know them all.

I was thinking parole could be used as the evaluation period after getting out of prison, but if it isn't a fixed amount of time, it will be abused and become a defacto lifetime ban. 

When it comes down to it, I think everyone should have a right to self defense.  And when the Constitution says "...shall not be infringed.." they meant exactly that so we should not infringe that right.  If someone has paid their debt in prison or fine, they should be let go with full rights for guns and such. 

Voting doesn't really apply since it isn't a right so much as a privilege or civic responsibility.