PA Bill Number: SB1013
Title: In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons and for possession ...
Description: In general provisions, further providing for definitions; in inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons and for possession ...
Last Action: Referred to JUDICIARY
Last Action Date: Jan 11, 2022
Concealed Carry Seminar – Sponsored by Ambridge District Sportsmen’s Assoc. - 02/26/2022
ADSA Clubhouse 2900 Ridge Road Extension, Baden PA
Concealed Carry Seminar – Sponsored by Rep. Jason Silvis - 04/7/2022
Huber Hall 300 Alexandria Street, Latrobe, PA
Concealed Carry Seminar – Sponsored by Rep. Jason Silvis - 04/28/2022
West Leechburg VFD Recreation Hall 1116 Gosser Street, West Leechburg, PA
Unlawful Firearm Possession Charge Overturned :: 12/02/2021
The spectrum of opinions on who may or may not be able to possess firearms is broad. One camp might say everyone has a right to arms, period. Another camp might say that no one should be able to have arms of any type, period. In between these diametrically opposite ideals lies federal and state disqualifiers for the possession of firearms.
I personally don’t want society’s most violent offenders being able to arm themselves, but that really does not matter, does it? Society’s most violent offenders that want to crime-on will get their hands on firearms regardless of the law or my desires. They make their own laws and grant themselves rights. I’m also of the belief that if someone has paid their debt to society, they should be fully, or be able to be fully reinvested with all their rights. Reading about a recent conviction involving a possession charge being overturned shows me that there is still room for reason in our justice system.
This case hails from Kansa and the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The case is known as United States v. Devonshay Hilleland.
From an order and judgement:
Hilleland’s situation reminds me of those plea bargains that you’d read about involving someone that takes a felony for not having to serve any time. What benefit does that do to society? Honestly. Branding someone a felon and there being actually no retribution in the way of paying a civic debt in one way or another does what? If anything our prosecutors are doing damage for no reason by marking people in such ways. If they’re not so dangerous that they don’t have to be in prison, then why should they be stripped of their rights? Hilleland’s case is quite similar to such situations. The judgement sets the stage and record straight:
The judgement makes sense. Parroting what was mentioned earlier; if someone is too dangerous to have their Second Amendment right, they probably should be incarcerated for their crimes. If the person has proved to not be a threat to the safety and welfare of society, then where’s the problem?
The subject of felons in possession might be too taboo for our High Court to hear anytime soon. They have turned down a few cases involving non-violent felons that are disqualified from possession of firearms. One of the cases involved bootleg cassette tapes and the other an individual that got pinched for non-payment of child support. I think someone that bootlegged cassette tapes back when we were all wearing neon nylon soccer shorts and playing hacky sack is not a menace to society.
Eventually a system does need to be put in place that is not onerous that will return rights to those that have been reformed. Isn’t that part of the process of incarceration? To reform? There sure have been many initiatives that restored the voting rights of felons. I don’t hear the people advocating for that process saying “all rights matter”. Just the convenient ones matter to the anti-freedom caucus. Too much reform and reinvestment of rights must be an overload for the progressives. This case, I’d mark up as a win. Hopefully Hilleland will continue to be on the up and up and be a model in case law.