Reevaluating Felon-in-Possession laws in the wake of Bruen and the lingering war on drugs - an ar

[Bodhi]

Doing my part to broaden and enhance the intellectual dimension and depth of this site.....an interesting article crossed my desk this week that I thought I would share. Here is the abstract:

authored by Laura Ginsberg Abelson. Here is its abstract:

The legal landscape surrounding firearm possession is evolving rapidly. In 2022, the Supreme Court accelerated its expansion of the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Since Bruen, courts around the country have struck down nearly all types of firearm regulations, with one notable exception: felon-in-possession laws. This paper examines the implications of a legal landscape where those who have prior felony convictions, and especially prior drug convictions, are punished harshly for the same behavior, possession of a firearm, that is constitutionally protected for everyone else.
I argue that as the Second Amendment expands to protect more and more firearm possession, a dichotomy has arisen in which those who live in the communities most heavily targeted by the war on drugs of the 1980s and 1990s are increasingly becoming virtually the only Americans for whom firearm possession is illegal. I examine the history and development of felon-in-possession statutes to show that they were not enacted with a clear purpose, and are not narrowly tailored to criminalize the most dangerous behavior. Further, I show how existing federal enforcement priorities and the structure of the United States Sentencing Guidelines compound the harms of the war on drugs by punishing individuals with prior drug offenses most harshly, even when there is limited evidence to suggest that they pose the greatest danger from firearm possession.
The Supreme Court is currently considering how to assess the question of danger in relation to the Second Amendment in United States v. Rahimi. I argue that as Second Amendment jurisprudence evolves, prosecutors and legislators must be cognizant of the lasting effects of the war on drugs, and question the assumption that a prior felony conviction is an accurate proxy for dangerousness.

Here is the link to the article: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4738997

 

[G-rat]

10-20-life and FJBs 1994 crime bill are a big factor in adding to that pool of felony convictions in addition to the "war on drugs". that's an interesting read for sure. no matter the circumstance, to me aggravated assault with a firearm, domestic violence with great bodily harm and other like violent felony convictions should always be banned from owning or carrying guns IMO.

 

[Rebel_Rider1969]

More "laws" that will fix it.

 

[Bowhntr6pt]

This ought to be a good one...

Lots of pissing moaning and groaning on other gun boards about whether or not Felons who have paid their debt to society should be allowed to have guns. You will have strong supporter's at each end of the spectrum.

Personally... I look at it this way... rules/law w/o consequences mean nothing. What's fair to one isn't fair to another.

I have a lot of things to concern myself with... whether or not felons get a pass sure isn't one of them. In fact, the time I took to respond to this thread is about all the time I care to give to the topic.

I've made it 62 years w/o accumulating a felony conviction... it wasn't hard.

 

[Rebel_Rider1969]

This is just a Segway to getting back voting rights for felons.

 

[Longtooth]

This ought to be a good one...

Lots of pissing moaning and groaning on other gun boards about whether or not Felons who have paid their debt to society should be allowed to have guns. You will have strong supporter's at each end of the spectrum.

Personally... I look at it this way... rules/law w/o consequences mean nothing. What's fair to one isn't fair to another.

I have a lot of things to concern myself with... whether or not felons get a pass sure isn't one of them. In fact, the time I took to respond to this thread is about all the time I care to give to the topic.

I've made it 62 years w/o accumulating a felony conviction... it wasn't hard.

But when you have unequal application of those rules and laws I can understand why some folks think this overdue..... dont forget the brace rule - how many instant Felons are out there?

Any rule can be turned back against the very people who think its a good idea - think "Patriot" act.

 

[Bodhi]

10-20-life and FJBs 1994 crime bill are a big factor in adding to that pool of felony convictions in addition to the "war on drugs". that's an interesting read for sure. no matter the circumstance, to me aggravated assault with a firearm, domestic violence with great bodily harm and other like violent felony convictions should always be banned from owning or carrying guns IMO.

The article was obviously researched and written with the Fed criminal sentencing standards and guidelines in mind. What the analysis of data suggests, at least to the author, is that the connection between firearms and violence in use, is far less frequent than firearms and a drug connection. IOW, you find more federal drug cases than you do federal murder/hate crime cases. Which is true.

To expand on that, when you read the Bruen decision and tease out how your SCOTUS is expanding the 2nd amendment, you have to question the assumptions that a prior felony conviction is a predictable proxy for violent behavior and therefore a loss of a constitutionally guaranteed right.

There are a lot of felonies on the books of the states.......most don't involve firearms. Many do.

Its an interesting theory of how wrong the laws can get it in application.

As I said in my opening post, just trying to expand the thinking on this site.

 

[Bodhi]

But when you have unequal application of those rules and laws I can understand why some folks think this overdue..... dont forget the brace rule - how many instant Felons are out there?

Any rule can be turned back against the very people who think its a good idea - think "Patriot" act.

The brace rule was thanks to Trump. He did no gun owners any favors. Folks ought to remember that.

 

[Longtooth]

The brace rule was thanks to Trump. He did no gun owners any favors. Folks ought to remember that.

Im under no delusion that anyone in power has my best interest in mind.