The Supreme Court has vacated a restrictive Massachusetts gun law and directed a lower court to rehear the case. Fox News. The case is Morin v Lyver and centers around a Massachusetts law that imposes strict restrictions on the possession and purchase of pistols and prevents people convicted of certain non-violent misdemeanors from ever purchasing a firearm. The lower courts found the law constitutional but the Supreme Court said the law had to be evaluated on the standard set by the landmark gun rights case, New York State Pistol Association v Bruen.
My Comment:
As a reminder, Bruen set a simple standard for gun control laws. Are those laws historically significant? That means that the old standard set in Heller is no longer relevant and has been set aside. That means that any argument about this law being necessary to prevent crime are now moot and now the question is is there any historical precedent on keeping people convicted of non-violent misdemeanors from purchasing firearms.
Felons are prohibited from purchasing firearms but in most cases, misdemeanors do not count. As a reminder, a Felony is a crime that is punished with more than a year in prison while misdemeanors are any crime punished with less than a year in custody. There is a major exception and that is the ban on firearms ownership for people convicted for domestic violence.
As far as I am aware, other gun bans based on misdemeanors are rare or non-existent so my guess is that if this case is decided on the Bruen standard it should be overturned. That is the standard set in that case and this Massachusetts law does not pass that standard. I don't know how much that would affect the other aspect of this case, the restriction on possession and purchases of firearms, but my guess is that part of the law would be overturned as well.
The Supreme Court's actions in this case is encouraging. It means that they were serious about the Bruen standard and are going to enforce it. There was some fear among the gun rights community that the Court would simply allow the lower courts to ignore the standard they set, much like the Court did when Heller was decided. But that has not come to pass.
Of course not all of the Supreme Court news is good. After all, they refused to hear cases challenging the ban on bump stocks. I would think that the ban on bump stocks would not pass the Bruen test, but instead the case was ignored by the Court. It makes the victory in the Lyver case a bit more bittersweet.
I am sure that some people will argue that people convicted of non-violent crimes should be prevented from gun ownership. Ignoring the legal arguments, I don't agree with that on a moral ground, and I even think that most non-violent felons should have their rights restored after they serve their time in prison and are out of custody. People have a right to self defense and the vast majority of people should not lose that right unless they have proven themselves to be violent.
No comments:
Post a Comment