Heller promised a “historical justification” for bans on felons. 554 U.S. at 635. Indeed, there may be such a justification for violent felons. Violent and potentially violent persons have historically been banned from keeping arms in several contexts—specifically, persons guilty of committing violent crimes, persons expected to take up arms against the government, persons with violent tendencies, distrusted groups of people, and those of presently unsound mind.
While many of these bans have been unjust and discriminatory, the purpose was always the same: to disarm those who posed a danger. Binderup, 836 F.3d at 357 (“The most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous per-sons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment.”) (Hardiman, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgments).
There is no historical justification for completely and forever depriving a peaceable citizen like Medina of his right to keep and bear arms.
If someone is convicted of mortgage fraud, I don’t know if I’d want them as an in-law. But I’d rather the government focus on preventing violent crime rather than prevent a non-violent mortgage fraudster from owning a firearm for the rest of his life.
Excerpts:
If someone is convicted of mortgage fraud, I don’t know if I’d want them as an in-law. But I’d rather the government focus on preventing violent crime rather than prevent a non-violent mortgage fraudster from owning a firearm for the rest of his life.