livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Is an indictment, an allegation, alone reason to revoke gun rights of an individual?
There is a lot of debate on gun rights ... rightfully so! There are background checks for felons, “red flag” laws to prevent people with mental health issues from possessing guns and consideration on restricting some automatic weapons. However, when a person has been charged with a non-violent crime, should they have their gun rights revoked? John Drago wants to know.
I wrote about Gregory Reyes’ case earlier this year. Reyes was the CEO of Brocade who was convicted of backdating stock options in 2010. He spent time in prison and has long since left. After his conviction, he could no longer have rights to his guns (an avid hunter).
In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act which prohibited any individual who has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from owning a firearm. Where as many of those convicted of a white collar crime did not use a gun in furtherance of their crime, they too would be prohibited from owning a gun in the future ... so no more hunting. However, the prohibition of guns for felons is not absolute. Turns out, the law to restrict his right to have a weapon did not apply to Reyes. So how might the law apply to a person who is alleged to have committed a non-violent crime (for the purposes here ... non-violent is going to mean white-collar)?
www.forbes.com
There is a lot of debate on gun rights ... rightfully so! There are background checks for felons, “red flag” laws to prevent people with mental health issues from possessing guns and consideration on restricting some automatic weapons. However, when a person has been charged with a non-violent crime, should they have their gun rights revoked? John Drago wants to know.
I wrote about Gregory Reyes’ case earlier this year. Reyes was the CEO of Brocade who was convicted of backdating stock options in 2010. He spent time in prison and has long since left. After his conviction, he could no longer have rights to his guns (an avid hunter).
In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act which prohibited any individual who has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from owning a firearm. Where as many of those convicted of a white collar crime did not use a gun in furtherance of their crime, they too would be prohibited from owning a gun in the future ... so no more hunting. However, the prohibition of guns for felons is not absolute. Turns out, the law to restrict his right to have a weapon did not apply to Reyes. So how might the law apply to a person who is alleged to have committed a non-violent crime (for the purposes here ... non-violent is going to mean white-collar)?
Accused Defendant In White Collar Case Wants Gun Rights Back
The presumption of innocence is one of the basic principles of our justice system. So why did this guy have his guns taken away? you would think it was based on law, but you would have guessed wrong.
www.forbes.com