Court: Arizona can restore gun rights to felons convicted in other states

[Aim1]

Wonder how this will play out.


From the article:

"PHOENIX — A felony conviction in another state does not preclude someone now living in Arizona from getting the right to own a gun, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.

In a new ruling, the judges concluded that state courts do have the power to restore an individual's right to possess or carry a firearm, regardless of where a prior conviction occurred."





https://www.yourvalley.net/stories/...nies-not-automatic-block-to-gun-rights,254488

 

[MedWheeler]

It never occurred to me that that might not be the case. Guess I hadn't thought about that. Sounds like a good thing so far, though I wonder how far it could be stretched. For example, could a person convicted of shooting at a cop get his gun rights restored in a state that has a building "defund-the-police" climate? Do we want that?

It also offers the curiosity: could a person convicted of a felonious offense that has since been decriminalized (or otherwise reduced) in another state move to that state and seek such reprieve? If so, how hard might it be to become a gun owner or carrier again, given that many states who might be so inclined to decriminalize or reduce are also largely resistant to private gun ownership?

 

[murf]

good

murf

 

[bassjam]

Great. If someone is deemed "reformed" and able to live side by side with the rest of us in society, they should also have their full rights restored.

If they can't be trusted to own a gun, well they shouldn't be released.

 

[wiscoaster]

Interesting. A step forward for those who've done their time and returned to society as law-abiding citizens. Yet ... brings up the Federal vs. States powers debate, and the "prohibited person" classification due to a felony conviction is a Federal classification, so won't that still trigger "deny" on a NICS background check regardless of what a state court rules? So, in practical terms, probably rather meaningless unless and until ruled on as national law by SCOTUS. Which, with Justice Barrett's known opinion on the matter, might be a case they take if it ever gets that far.

 

[murf]

still up to the judge. we have a lot of people coming here from california so anything to help all people exercise their rkba is good.

murf

 

[DustyGmt]

I have always believed that once someone commits a crime, they should go do their time. Whatever the punishment may be, whatever the lawyer works out for the guy. Then, I believe once you've completed your sentence, you paid your debt to society. Stripping a fundamental right for life seems like an over reach.

I believe if feel differently about repeat offenders, career criminals and the like. But somebody getting caught up being stupid, go do your sentence and go live your life, rights restored. That's how I've looked at it. Again, I feel a lil bit differently about that in the context of sexual predators and being around kids or women. But if you're the guy going around cashing bad checks and you go to jail for it, you should be able to give it another go in life with your rights restored.

 

[whughett]

A two edged sword. Rights of one pitted against rights of others to life. Fact remains, a large percentage of convicted felons commit mayhem again and again. An armed robber may serve a reduced sentence and commit the same offense this time with dire consequences for someone.
How to determine who has what intentions 64000 dollar question.

 

[kmw1954]

I know a couple of fellows I can think of that should be restored. One was convicted as a teen for having 12 small pot plants and was charged as producing. They want him to roll over on another friend that was selling and he wouldn't. Convicted felon yes. No further police contact in over 12 years. Second another young teen convicted for robbery, also was a drug user at the time. He did 3 years in prison. Now 40 with 3 kids and also has not have any police contact in the past 20 years. Third is my ex brother-in-law convicted of dealing drugs, served a full 7 year sentence. His arrest came about because he got caught selling coke to a judges son. Judges son wasn't even sent to rehab! He too has had no police contact since release from prison almost 40 years ago.

I fully agree with bassjam. If you are too dangerous to be out in society with a gun then you do not belong out in society period! If you have paid your debt to society and severed your time and paid whatever restitution and as these people over times have proven them selves their full rights should be restored.

These laws were made by man/society and can be altered by man/society. Not so many years ago porn movie theaters were illegal now you can get it on your TV and computer. Pot WAS illegal, that is changing also. Though it is practically illegal to smoke a cigarette, cigar or pipe in public these days.

 

[kmw1954]

. An armed robber may serve a reduced sentence and commit the same offense this time with dire consequences for someone. .

Our laws and court system were not established to predict or assume what someone MAY do. The reason behind I am against all these Red Flag Laws they are trying to pass. They are tying to legislate preventing someone from doing something that hasn't been done. The , Well' They Might"! But they didn't.

Yes there are a great deal that commit recidivism and those people need to be dealt with differently and there are also laws to deal with that already if we would follow them. Then there are just as many that have fallen and do their punishment and never even come close to getting even a speeding ticket.

The viewpoint now and in the past is that you are a convicted person. You have been deemed inferior or flawed and can never again fully rejoin our society.

 

[RMH]

Interesting. A step forward for those who've done their time and returned to society as law-abiding citizens. Yet ... brings up the Federal vs. States powers debate, and the "prohibited person" classification due to a felony conviction is a Federal classification, so won't that still trigger "deny" on a NICS background check regardless of what a state court rules? So, in practical terms, probably rather meaningless unless and until ruled on as national law by SCOTUS. Which, with Justice Barrett's known opinion on the matter, might be a case they take if it ever gets that far.

This brings up another interesting scenario. Lets say an Arizona judge restores the 2nd amendment rights to an individual that is a Arizona resident. Now lets say this person applies for and receives an Arizona CCW.

In Arizona you can use your CCW in lieu of the NCIS background check to buy a firearm in your LGS but there is still the problem with the 4473 line 21c, Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

 

[kmw1954]

In Arizona you can use your CCW in lieu of the NCIS background check to buy a firearm in your LGS but there is still the problem with the 4473 line 21c, Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

I will respond and answer this question the same way I did in the end of my post in comment #9
Society had made and set the law so society can also change or abolish a law that has become outdated or benign.

 

[plainsdrifter]

IMO if you used a gun in the crime you committed then that would be a forever NO! Gotta deal with the consequences and ya shoulda thought about that. Also assault and battery extra should also be denied. You cannot trust people who are very violent to be totally reformed.

This brings up another interesting scenario. Lets say an Arizona judge restores the 2nd amendment rights to an individual that is a Arizona resident. Now lets say this person applies for and receives an Arizona CCW.

In Arizona you can use your CCW in lieu of the NCIS background check to buy a firearm in your LGS but there is still the problem with the 4473 line 21c, Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

There is an underlying question about line 21c. If rights are restored are you legally required to answer that as a yes?

 

[CapnMac]

Probably the actual filing needs to be read in detail, and not relying upon (often wobbly) journalists for accuracy.

While a State can do many things, I'm not entirely sure a State can restore what Federal Law denies (as noted in #11 above). Whether that is "right" or not is a subject well beyond THR's scope.

I will strongly suspect this is going to be one of those state-level, "we're not going to enforce" things, which will be more "show" than "go."

 

[dogtown tom]

Great. If someone is deemed "reformed" and able to live side by side with the rest of us in society, they should also have their full rights restored.

Using that logic a convicted child molester should be able to be a kindergarten teacher after he's paid his debt to society.

If they can't be trusted to own a gun, well they shouldn't be released.

Trust has zip all to do with anything. Criminal penalties aren't established because we know that the convict will be magically rehabilitated behind bars. It's supposed to be a deterrent to committing a crime. The fact is, jails and prisons are overflowing as it is and keeping convicts in prison until they "can be trusted" means many would never get out.

While its easy to say "well they shouldn't be released".............who's gonna pay for their lifetime stay in the pen? No one wants to pay the bill for the almost one person in a hundred thats sitting in jail right now.

 

[illinoisburt]

This brings up another interesting scenario. Lets say an Arizona judge restores the 2nd amendment rights to an individual that is a Arizona resident. Now lets say this person applies for and receives an Arizona CCW.

In Arizona you can use your CCW in lieu of the NCIS background check to buy a firearm in your LGS but there is still the problem with the 4473 line 21c, Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

I imagine to restore a person's rights the judge would essentially be issuing a pardon where the conviction be set aside. The legal effect is as if the person was not found guilty in the first place, as opposed to a commutation or clemency where the conviction still exists but punishment is reduced or substituted. So the correct answer on the form would then be 'no'.

 

[whughett]

So as Churchill said as it related to a political state, a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Who can say what lurks in the mind of a man.

I know a couple of fellows I can think of that should be restored. One was convicted as a teen for having 12 small pot plants and was charged as producing. They want him to roll over on another friend that was selling and he wouldn't. Convicted felon yes. No further police contact in over 12 years. Second another young teen convicted for robbery, also was a drug user at the time. He did 3 years in prison. Now 40 with 3 kids and also has not have any police contact in the past 20 years. Third is my ex brother-in-law convicted of dealing drugs, served a full 7 year sentence. His arrest came about because he got caught selling coke to a judges son. Judges son wasn't even sent to rehab! He too has had no police contact since release from prison almost 40 years ago.

I fully agree with bassjam. If you are too dangerous to be out in society with a gun then you do not belong out in society period! If you have paid your debt to society and severed your time and paid whatever restitution and as these people over times have proven them selves their full rights should be restored.

These laws were made by man/society and can be altered by man/society. Not so many years ago porn movie theaters were illegal now you can get it on your TV and computer. Pot WAS illegal, that is changing also. Though it is practically illegal to smoke a cigarette, cigar or pipe in public these days.

I believe most states provides a path that a can lead to, if not a record cleaned, then at least sealed. Weather this applies to Gun ownership or not I’ve no idea. Some of those you mentioned are classified as non-violent.

 

[wiscoaster]

...There is an underlying question about line 21c. If rights are restored are you legally required to answer that as a yes?

It just asks "... if you have ever been convicted...?" so the legal answer has to be "yes". It asks nothing about your current status even if pardoned or commuted. I think the entire question itself needs to be changed.

 

[kmw1954]

Using that logic a convicted child molester should be able to be a kindergarten teacher after he's paid his debt to society.

Trust has zip all to do with anything. Criminal penalties aren't established because we know that the convict will be magically rehabilitated behind bars.

keeping convicts in prison until they "can be trusted" means many would never get out.

While its easy to say "well they shouldn't be released".............who's gonna pay for their lifetime stay in the pen?.

And Bank robbers should all be Bank Tellers, Murderers should all become Executioners! Assailants maybe Bill Collectors.

Criminal Penalties are meant to be punishment, prisons are NOT reformatories. That is what some liberally progressive people believe that prisoners are to be reformed. Not they are to be punished.

The last two, that is why I truly believe in Capital Punishment. If your crime was so server that you should never be released then it is server enough that you should be terminated like a mad dog. If you are an Animal then you should be punished just like an Animal.

In past societies there are many things that were judged to be immoral, dangerous, unacceptable and Illegal. Today those same things are mainstream and even promoted by society. How about that?

 

[RMH]

It just asks "... if you have ever been convicted...?" so the legal answer has to be "yes". It asks nothing about your current status even if pardoned or commuted. I think the entire question itself needs to be changed.

That was the point I was trying to make. Even tho the state may say own a firearm, the fed may still say no.

 

[DeepSouth]

Great well give legal guns to gang bangers and murderers that shouldn’t even be out of prison…
I can’t imagine anything that could go wrong.

 

[bassjam]

Using that logic a convicted child molester should be able to be a kindergarten teacher after he's paid his debt to society.


Trust has zip all to do with anything. Criminal penalties aren't established because we know that the convict will be magically rehabilitated behind bars. It's supposed to be a deterrent to committing a crime. The fact is, jails and prisons are overflowing as it is and keeping convicts in prison until they "can be trusted" means many would never get out.

While its easy to say "well they shouldn't be released".............who's gonna pay for their lifetime stay in the pen? No one wants to pay the bill for the almost one person in a hundred thats sitting in jail right now.

If the child molester is still at risk of molesting children, why is he/she free at all?

 

[illinoisburt]

It just asks "... if you have ever been convicted...?" so the legal answer has to be "yes". It asks nothing about your current status even if pardoned or commuted. I think the entire question itself needs to be changed.

That is not correct. A pardon sets aside the conviction as if it did not happen though the record often is not sealed. There is a surprising number of state level pardons, many of which are simple operation of law like the recent MJ rules in Illinois. I know when we think of felony most people automatically think violence however generally felony only means the criminal code has a potential penalty of over a year in prison.

This really is an important court decision. Leaving aside drug laws, let's consider examples of gun laws. If I drove to NYC or NJ with my concealed carry and 17 round mags of HP, they would happily charge and possibly convict me of state felonies. Come home to Alabama, would a judge be able to now pardon me for those NY and NJ crimes? Would that be a wrong in some people's eyes because once a felon always a felon? Or is it the right thing to do because what was done is absolutely not illegal in my home state? This isn't a rhetorical question for some people -- there are plenty of cases involving exactly these types of issues.

 

[kmw1954]

gang bangers and murderers that shouldn’t even be out of prison…
I can’t imagine anything that could go wrong.

So again ask the question, Why are these people released if they are such a danger? Has nothing to do with having a gun. If they are dangerous they are dangerous with and without guns.

 

[KarateHottie93]

I know more felons with guns than people with clean slates as it is...so eh.