25 years ago, Julio Suarez was convicted on a misdemeanor charge in Maryland.
His supposed crime was carrying a firearm without the required government-approved license. He was pulled over on a suspected DUI, but ended up in trouble for possessing a firearm instead.
How many times do we see police and prosecutors go after someone for a crime, only to end up getting the person on something else? The war on drugs is almost infamous for this happening, but that is a subject for another day.
In this case, the man was actually sentenced to 180 days in prison, along with probation and a fine. Luckily, the prison sentence was suspended at the time. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the end of the incident.
The problem is that Suarez lost his rights to own a gun. He lost his ability to protect himself and his family.
Federal law dictates that many people convicted of misdemeanors, even on a state level, and even for non-violent acts, lose their gun rights.
A new court ruling says that the man is no danger to society and should have his constitutional rights restored. Regardless of what you think of the rationale for the ruling, it is a positive ruling in favor of liberty.
Where is it in the Constitution?
The 2nd Amendment is supposed to stop the federal government from interfering in the right to bear arms.
Many people believe that this amendment extends to the states. I think this part is highly questionable, but that argument doesn’t matter so much in this case here.
There is no question that the federal government has no business – constitutionally or otherwise – to make any gun laws. There is nothing in the Constitution granting this power and the 2nd Amendment just affirms this. This entire federal law should be struck down.
In fact, all federal laws regarding guns should be struck down or repealed. This is what gun advocates should favor. Decentralization usually means more liberty and it would certainly apply in the case of gun rights in the United States.
If states want to adopt laws preventing non-violent “criminals” from owning guns, then that should be the business of the residents of each state. I’m not saying this would be a wise law, but at least it would be more decentralized. In the case of this man, if Maryland had such a law, at least he would have the option of moving to a state that wouldn’t take away his gun rights.
Gun Rights for Ex-Convicts
There is actually a libertarian argument to be made that even ex-felons should have gun rights restored. If they have paid their dues and they are no longer a threat to society, then why shouldn’t they have a right to defend themselves?
If the person still presents a significant threat to society, then perhaps the person should not be out of prison yet.
Of course, there are many felons who are non-violent. This could include drug charges, DUI charges, financial crimes, and many other things. Some of these things shouldn’t even be crimes, but the point is that if a person is not a violent threat to society and has served his or her time, shouldn’t he or she be allowed to own a firearm?
Should we prevent Martha Stewart (who isn’t really a criminal anyway) from owning a gun? Personally, I’m not too worried about Martha busting in to my home and causing me harm.
Again, regardless of your take on this particular topic, this should be an issue for states or cities to decide on their own. We don’t need a one-size-fits-all policy for over 300 million people.
This whole case is about many different issues. It is about gun rights. It is about property rights. It is about the Constitution and the lack of respect for it by federal officials. It is about the rule of law and about commons sense. It is even about nullification.
Let’s hope this court ruling will stand. Every now and then, we get a ruling that gives us common sense and the rule of law over political power. This federal law is no law at all because it is unconstitutional. It also defies common sense.
