Geaux4it
Intensity Factor 4-Fold
- May 31, 2009
- 22,873
- 4,296
More victories for law abiding true Americans. The 2A foundation is tearing down the impacts to our civil rights. Matter of time before National Concealed Carry passes
When will the American communist realize we will not be assimilated?
-Geaux
---------------------------
U.S. District Court finds provision of 1968 Gun Control Act unconstitutional Firearms Policy Coalition
In another victory for Second Amendment civil rights by attorney Alan Gura, a United States District Court found a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 unconstitutional as applied to some people who, like the plaintiff in the case, are currently law-abiding and not felons, adjudicated as mentally defective, or have a violent criminal history.
In the decision released today, Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge William W. Caldwell ultimately held that “Plaintiff [Julio Suarez] has established that his background and circumstances place him outside of the intended scope § 922(g)(1), and therefore the application of [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g)(1) violates Plaintiff’s Second Amendment protections.”
According to the decision, “On June 26, 1990, Julio Suarez was convicted in Montgomery County, Maryland of carrying a handgun without a license….The offense was a misdemeanor and subject to a term of imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than three years.”
Following the conviction, the record showed, Suarez was sentenced to 180 days imprisonment and a $500 fine–both suspended–and he was sentenced to one year probation. Suarez’s conviction, according to Defendants [United States Attorney General Eric Holder and others], places him within the scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which bars individuals convicted of certain offenses from possessing a firearm.
However, the Court held that “Plaintiff’s background and circumstances in the years following his conviction establish that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society….Therefore, we find that Plaintiff falls outside the intended scope of § 922(g)(1) and is distinguishable from those historically barred from Second Amendment protections.”
When will the American communist realize we will not be assimilated?
-Geaux
---------------------------
U.S. District Court finds provision of 1968 Gun Control Act unconstitutional Firearms Policy Coalition
In another victory for Second Amendment civil rights by attorney Alan Gura, a United States District Court found a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 unconstitutional as applied to some people who, like the plaintiff in the case, are currently law-abiding and not felons, adjudicated as mentally defective, or have a violent criminal history.
In the decision released today, Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge William W. Caldwell ultimately held that “Plaintiff [Julio Suarez] has established that his background and circumstances place him outside of the intended scope § 922(g)(1), and therefore the application of [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g)(1) violates Plaintiff’s Second Amendment protections.”
According to the decision, “On June 26, 1990, Julio Suarez was convicted in Montgomery County, Maryland of carrying a handgun without a license….The offense was a misdemeanor and subject to a term of imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than three years.”
Following the conviction, the record showed, Suarez was sentenced to 180 days imprisonment and a $500 fine–both suspended–and he was sentenced to one year probation. Suarez’s conviction, according to Defendants [United States Attorney General Eric Holder and others], places him within the scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which bars individuals convicted of certain offenses from possessing a firearm.
However, the Court held that “Plaintiff’s background and circumstances in the years following his conviction establish that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society….Therefore, we find that Plaintiff falls outside the intended scope of § 922(g)(1) and is distinguishable from those historically barred from Second Amendment protections.”