http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25753541/

Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons
Supreme Court decision spawns new lines of attack on firearms laws

updated 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces
charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after
police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home
south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases
argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded
handguns at home for self-defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves
and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos,
Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision
means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people
convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional
as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.

On Jul 20, 2:14 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
yahoo.com> wrote:

This guy has about as much chance for this to work as he would if he
got the ACLU to claim he had a "collective right" under the 2nd! He
can argue that the moon is made of green cheese too, but the Heller
decision specifically noted that restrictions on convicted felons are
constitutional. What does he want? Them to rub his nose in the
decision?

The "low bar" is indeed the problem. If restricting violent felons
from having guns because they already proved they would abuse the
right makes sense, the problem is that gun-grabbers then want to "push...

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:Xns9AE12825C6DDriemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70...

Then clearly they didn't bother to read the entire ruling.

Benj iwaynet.net> wrote in
news:277983bc-8744-481c-a50c-5ce6ec0841cf@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

"Scout" verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:gbHgk.120$X2.54@trnddc03:

That's what Scalia said, but many people are arguing that it makes no
sense. On the one hand Scalia says RKBA is a constitutional and individual
right and then he turns around and says it's ok to take away the right from
MILLIONS of americans for crimes that in many cases were so minor they
didn't even warrant any prison time!!! There's a contradiction there.

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:Xns9AE161B2E4895riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70...

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:Xns9AE16293CAC23riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70...

Only those who have no sense.

Your daughter's boyfriend abuses her physically.

She gets a restraining order.

You want the guy to have gun rights????

"Benj" iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:277983bc-8744-481c-a50c-5ce6ec0841cf@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 20, 2:14 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
yahoo.com> wrote:

In talk.politics.guns "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
yahoo.com> wrote:

"Benj" iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:277983bc-8744-481c-a50c-5ce6ec0841cf@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 20, 2:14 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
yahoo.com> wrote:

This guy has about as much chance for this to work as he would if he
got the ACLU to claim he had a "collective right" under the 2nd! He
can argue that the moon is made of green cheese too, but the Heller
decision specifically noted that restrictions on convicted felons are
constitutional. What does he want? Them to rub his nose in the
decision?