Felon Gun Rights

PUBLISHED: 9:22 PM 7 May 2018

Illinois Court Restores Second Amendment Felon Rights

Some convicted felons are determined undeserving of prison but still have their right to bear arms attacked.

An Illinois district court ruled that felons who are not determined violent enough to go to prison should not have their right to bear arms infringed upon.

There is undeniably something to be said about criminals who have committed heinous acts as pertaining to their personal firearm restrictions. However, taking away such rights is not something that should be taken lightly, especially considering that some crimes are arguably much worse than others.

Recently, a state district court determined that a certain class of convicted felons should not be rightfully stripped of their ability to legally bear arms if they were never considered dangerous enough to be sent to prison. Of course, liberals are furious that not just anyone cannot have their gun rights taken away upon being involved in nonviolent crimes; yet it is an unfortunately predictable and leftist move to leave such individuals unable to protect themselves.

The consideration was presented to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois regarding the plaintiff, Larry Edward Hatfield, who was given no incarceration sentence yet still had his second amendment rights infringed upon.

Thankfully in upholding the Constitution, Judge Phil Gilbert ruled on April 28, that it is highly inconsistent and unconstitutional to determine a citizen safe enough to remain out of prison but not worthy to defend themselves.

This was the case for Hatfield, who, “28 years ago, lied on some forms that he sent to the Railroad Retirement Board: a felony.”

He did not serve time for such crimes; however, had since dealt with the stipulation of walking free in society without being allowed to be protected.

Thankfully, Hatfield had a 2010 7th Circuit case ruling on his side from D.C. v. Heller which concluded that nonviolent, ‘presumptively lawful’ convicted felons, as implied by the name, should not be threatened by gun grabbing measures when “there must exist the possibility that the ban could be unconstitutional in the face of an as applied challenge.”

Hatfield, thankfully, had his second amendment rights restored, considering that he should have never had such taken away initially.

The court even determined that such a ruling demonstrates that the government does not take “the second amendment seriously” as pertaining to “overbroad policies” and that the government is often too quick to jump to stripping rights, especially to those immediately convicted of a felony.

However, one underlying issue regarding automatically taking away gun rights from felons is that it has become increasingly easier to convict the average man of such charges from the sheer number of laws which influence various areas of society.

This is not coincidental and is obviously progressive in nature considering that once “there were only nine crimes that were considered felonies. They were murder, rape, manslaughter, robbery, sodomy, larceny, arson, mayhem, and burglary.”

Now, there are “thousands of regulatory crimes” which do not address an offender being in “culpable mental state” or with the intent to be doing anything wrong especially given that the average person is not aware of all governed laws.

Novelist Ayn Rand wrote a compelling statement on the issue in which she addressed that “there’s no way to rule innocent men” and that “when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

In nearly any instance, this can manifest in determined prosecutors pursuing a person’s criminal history when there is no apparent record simply on the basis that many civilians unknowingly commit felonies on a daily basis.

Also, not by chance, the significant extension generally pertains to gun laws which convert law-abiding citizens into criminals who in turn are no longer able to remain armed.

In the firearm world, such regulations can easily extend to technicalities such as transferring a gun to someone in another state.

This type of legislation is the lesser talked about side to the Constitution’s recent threats as many consider illogical rulings legitimate simply because of the power or reputation of a court.

Thankfully, especially for those who make decisions on judicial rulings, Illinois is proving to be leading the way in defending those who admittedly have made judgment errors but are not candidates to have their rights infringed upon.

Liberals will surely retain fury in learning about these type of rulings; however, they will not endanger civilians to extent that leftists put the country at risk by allowing criminal illegal immigrants into the country, among other horrors.

While their attempt is to keep America safe in restricting gun ownership, the illogical reasoning is what creates dangerous communities and promotes criminal activity. Thankfully, state by state, individual courts can help restrict overbearing gun control legislation.

This will hopefully extend into liberal states such as California where extreme risk protection orders can be mandated at will, thus completely bypassing due process in attempting to implement ‘reasonable gun restrictions.’

The Illinois ruling, will, however, hopefully prove to be another necessary segment in the left’s apparent need for a Constitution lesson while also showing all of America that the second amendment still stands for something.