Maryland man has Second Amendment rights restored-misdemeanor 25 yrs. ago

[RamRoddoc]

A man convicted 25 years ago in Maryland on a misdemeanor charge for carrying a firearm without a license will see his Second Amendment rights restored, under a new federal court ruling issued Wednesday.
“Under existing federal law many people convicted of non-violent state-level misdemeanors have lost their Second Amendment rights because they’ve been lumped together with convicted felons due to indeterminate sentencing laws,” Gottlieb said.

“That’s not right, and cases like this help restore some perspective and narrow some broad legislative brush strokes.”

Suarez, originally pulled over by police in 1990 on a suspected DUI charge, was convicted instead of possessing a firearm without a permit and sentenced to 180 days in prison, 1 year probation and a $500 fine. Court records show the terms of imprisonment and fine were both suspended.

The father of three, who has been married for 20 years and is an active member of his local church, has since led an “exemplary life,” Gottlieb said, but he noted the conviction was enough to cost Suarez his ability to buy and keep a firearm for defense of his home and family.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/1...ars-ago-has-second-amendment-rights-restored/



The government seems to disagree.......

According to those involved with the case, the federal government argued those convicted of misdemeanors who could have served a year in prison should be treated as felons.

U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Daniel Riess told Fox News he could not make a statement on the case because it is still considered to be “pending," meaningthe government will appeal the ruling to a higher court.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

The next thing we need the courts to do is apply this doctrine to long-ago misdemeanor crimes of family violence or domestic violence.
The ones that disqualify somebody for life from ever possessing any gun or ammunition.
http://www.forthoodsentinel.com/story.php?id=5870
Even if you pled guilty to some offense of domestic violence 20, 30, or even 50 years ago.

I think even people who truly were guilty of slapping their wives or girlfriends around that long ago should not lose their Second Amendment rights today, absent the State showing that they still can't control their temper and still regularly commit crimes or threaten people's safety.

And back in the 1950s and 1960s, many states did not have "no fault" divorces. When a couple got the State's permission to marry, the State said it's for life, literally, and a divorce could only be had by one party committing one of several specific offenses against the other. Or, if not actually committing it, then just admitting it with a wink and a nod and letting that "offense" be the reason to get a divorce.

Before no-fault divorces were common in society, I am told that plenty of men pled guilty to misdemeanor offenses of family violence just to get the divorce that they and their wives mutually wanted. Back then, it was no big deal. No loss of any rights.
But since 1996, a domestic violence conviction from the 1960s puts a man, say an elderly man who wants to get a gun for protection now that he's too old and feeble to put up a physical fight, in the same legal status as a convicted bank robber or certified insane person fresh out of they State asylum.

We ought to change that. With judicial activism if necessary.