if the Supreme Court rules against DC...

File for expungement, or whatever the proper legal term is, and begin the process for restoration of rights. Then the civil lawsuits will begin, and the money hungry class action lawsuits, and the game goes on.

Interesting. So people that are otherwise law abiding that were convicted of a felony of possession in DC might be able to sue the Govt. to get their rights back. Congress would have to fund the ATF for that program again.

I'm against felons owning guns but there are antidotal stories of people innocently getting caught up in DC gun laws and losing their gun and voting rights.

This thread reminded me that not everyone has to follow the rules.

Carl Rowan, news reporter and one of the country's foremost gun control advocates, supported the idea, "If you have a gun you should go to jail- period." One night, Rowan heard people trespassing on his property. He produced an unregistered .22 pistol, fired a warning shot in their direction, and hit one of them in the wrist. Rowan was not convicted or jailed for possessing a gun despite Washington DC's strict gun laws, or for firing it at a person who was committing, at worst, a misdemeanor.

His good name was never blemished by the word "FELON" although he should of faced the same penalties that the DC gun laws imposed.

They might get reduced sentences, paroles, or pardons, but there probably won't be expungement. The activities for which they were convicted were illegal at the time in question.

Little will change besides the outright ban. A lot of regulation will survive, and I'm sure laws banning felon possession will be one of them. But it will take years before it is settled law.

Peyton,
That isn't what I'm talking about. One of the stories I heard (not verified) is about a construction worker from VA that had a box of 22 ammo in his truck while working in DC. If that is the case then he should get his rights back. Our buddy Carl is another story.

I'm against felons owning guns but there are antidotal stories of people innocently getting caught up in DC gun laws and losing their gun and voting rights.

Click to expand...

Way too many so-called crimes that can get you a felony status these days Rabid Rabbit... You will see plenty of stories on this site of generally law-abiding citizens that cannot aquire or possess guns for ridiculous nonsense, or at least trivial nonsense.

Rabid Rabbit

Congress would have to fund the ATF for that program again.

Click to expand...

Why would Congress have to or even want to fund that?

NukemJim

Because losing your RKBA because you possessed an empty post-'94 30-round AR magazine in NY is just wrong.

"Carl Rowan, news reporter and one of the country's foremost gun control advocates, supported the idea, "If you have a gun you should go to jail- period." One night, Rowan heard people trespassing on his property. He produced an unregistered .22 pistol, fired a warning shot in their direction, and hit one of them in the wrist. Rowan was not convicted or jailed for possessing a gun despite Washington DC's strict gun laws, or for firing it at a person who was committing, at worst, a misdemeanor.

His good name was never blemished by the word "FELON" although he should of faced the same penalties that the DC gun laws imposed."


Carl Rowan Jr (probably related I'm guessing) is on the ballot for the NRA board of directors...
Joe

Nuke,
Because if the Govt. was sued and lost they would have to provide some method to reestablish the rights of the plantiff.

As CT said losing your rights over a empty 30 rnd mag is just wrong.

"Carl Rowan Jr (probably related I'm guessing) is on the ballot for the NRA board of directors...."

Jr. is his son. Daddy claimed it was the son's gun as he (Daddy) tried to squeek out of the D.C. possession charges against him. Son is former FBI. I guess Daddy thought he could ride along on his son's former coattails.

Like Jane Fonda, Carl Rowan, Sr. (a very strong anti-gun WaPo columnist) didn't think gun laws apply to "people like us" -- rich and well-connected.

I understand the act was illegal at the time

but when a law is thrown out as unconstitutional, I was under the impression it was if it never existed. Convictions for violating that law should become null and void as the law itself was illegal.

Any of our legal minds here wanna check in on this?

That's fascinating info about the two C Rowans. I'm disgusted that Sr. got off when a regular guy wouldn't have.

I think if the other case is final before Heller is decided, the defendant is screwed.

No, an unconstitutional law is null and void going back to the ratification of the amendment that made it unconstitutional. If you were convicted AFTER the 2nd amendment was ratified, you get to go free with a clean record. Since the 2nd amendment predates the DC ban by 2 centuries, everyone would have their convictions overturned. Habeas time.

Carl Rowan was charged with illegal possession of an unregistered handgun and the case went to trial. The jury was deadlocked and a mistrial was declared.

In legal theory if a law is held as unconstitutional than any convictions arising from that law should be considered null and void.

In the real world only those who are well off enough to afford paying a lawyer to jump through all the hoops to put that theory in play for them will benefit from pro gun Heller ruling.

All others convicted under these laws will have those convictions remain in force and on their records. The chances of the government at any level passing any kind of law to offer relief to this group rests somewhere between slim and none.