Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High Court Asked To Take Up Case On Weapons Prohibitions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • High Court Asked To Take Up Case On Weapons Prohibitions



    State law barring those under indictment for violent crimes from possessing firearms runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, a man is prepared to argue at the Ohio Supreme Court.
    Delvonte Philpotts contends in a memorandum in support of jurisdiction that the law violates both the Second Amendment and the due process clause of the Constitution.

    "This seize-first-ask-questions-later approach cannot be reconciled with the Constitution's codification of the timeless right to defend one's self, home, and family. While new acquisitions after indictment are criminalized nationwide, and have been for over a century, Ohio's abnormal and extraordinary ban on continued, pre-existing possession is without any historical precedent and cannot survive constitutional scrutiny," he writes.

    "Only three states — Washington, Hawaii and (for now) Ohio — criminalize continued preexisting possession of firearms at home by indictees."
    Mr. Philpotts was under indictment for rape, kidnapping and assault when "sixteen armed police ransacked his home and found a pistol."
    The charges were later dropped, but he was faced with another case in which he was accused of having a weapon under disability. He pleaded no contest and appealed to the Eight District, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.

    But the appellate court found that the law "is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest in curtailing gun violence and it leaves open alternative means of exercising an individual's Second Amendment right."
    But Mr. Philpotts argues the appellate court erred in viewing the law as narrowly tailored.

    "Worst of all, the ban attaches automatically to every indictee, without regard for individual circumstances and without a pre-deprivation hearing on an individual indictee's actual dangerousness," he wrote. "It automatically burdens all indictees, even though they are legally presumed to be 'law-abiding' until actually convicted, and even if no other 'disability' affects them. Because the statute reaches everywhere, and uses the most invasive method possible, it violates the Second Amendment on its face."

    Mr. Philpotts also maintains that the law violates due process rights because it provides only for a post-deprivation hearing.
    "More importantly, though, the very existence of (the law) is a clear acknowledgment by the General Assembly that the only way to find out who specifically is and isn't too dangerous to continue possessing their firearms during indictment is to have an individualized hearing," he writes. "In other words, the General Assembly knows that in fact not all indictees are necessarily too dangerous to continue possession a firearm — the only problem is that right now, the law does it backwards, taking the rights away first and asking the necessary questions later."
    Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10

  • #2
    Unless you are writing these articles, Why don't you post the link to the stories?
    I carry a firearm because a cop is too heavy and takes too many breaks.

    Montani Semper Liberi - (Mountaineers Are Always Free)

    Comment


    • #3
      I normally do. If you have a gongwer subscription, you will be able to go out and look at the source for this one.

      https://www.gongwer-oh.com/programmi...e_id=881760204
      Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10

      Comment

      Working...
      X