In State v. Tomas (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Dec. 7), Marinko Tomas was prosecuted for violating Ohio Rev. Code. § 2923.13(A)(3):
Unless relieved from disability as provided in section 2923.14 of the Revised Code, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if …(3) The person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been an offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse.
Tomas had been “convicted in 1991 of Attempted Trafficking of Marijuana, a first-degree misdemeanor.” The court applied strict scrutiny, and concluded:
[T]he State has no compelling interest in prohibiting this particular defendant from possessing firearms in his place of business and home…. The evidence established that Defendant makes his home and runs his business in a dangerous violent neighborhood and to protect himself and his family [who lived on the premises of the business -EV] from the inherent violence, he keeps guns on the premises.
This Court therefore narrowly holds that R.C. §2923.13 is unconstitutional when a defendant with no felony convictions, possesses firearms in his home or business, for the limited purpose of self-defense.
GBED989 says:
Reasonable……….
December 8, 2010, 4:05 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Now extend that to all misdemeanor convictions and the law will start to make some tiny amount of sense.
December 8, 2010, 4:16 pmsubpatre says:
it is a little bothersome that “… makes his home and runs his business in a dangerous violent neighborhood and to protect himself and his family from the inherent violence…” is included. It may be dicta, but such things often take on a life of their own.
Will this —requiring some demonstration of ‘need’— now be used in subsequent decisions about what many regard as a civil right?
December 8, 2010, 4:20 pmterraformer says:
Need is being attacked elsewhere (NJ, CA). The fact that it arises here is to somehow make Tomas more sympathetic. It is not inherent in this decision it appears.
to another poster, the fact that SCOTUS in heller singled out felons and made no mention of misdemeanants says there may be support for tossing misdemeanor convictions out of the lifetime DQ punchbowl. Though limited time DQs may be seen as OK but that is scary because of Caron. I also want to point out that today, this opinion does him no favors, limiting his firearms rights to prevent his attaining a CCW permit means he is still federally DQ’d as per ATF’s interpretation of Caron.
December 8, 2010, 4:26 pmMatthew Carberry says:
We (in Alaska) finally fixed our partial restoration of rights problem last June.
The Federal Firearms regulations are pretty onerous for folks living out in the Bush.
December 8, 2010, 5:36 pmSeattle Conservative says:
If the state prohibition comes from a misdemeanor with less than 1 year maximum incarceration, does Caron play a role here?
December 8, 2010, 6:10 pmStrict Scrutiny Applied to Ohio Firearms Statute « The Charles Law & History Blog says:
[...] to Ohio Firearms Statute December 8, 2010 by Patrick J. Charles As first reported by Eugene Volokh, a Ohio Court of Common Pleas has overturned a conviction to Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13(A)(3), which [...]
December 8, 2010, 6:14 pmShelbyC says:
December 8, 2010, 8:06 pmlgm says:
Question: does the state “have a legitimate interest” in denying felons the right to vote? If it didn’t George Bush would not have been President.
[EV says: The Fourteenth Amendment seems to suggest that states are free to do so, as Richardson v. Ramirez (1974) explains.]
December 8, 2010, 9:24 pmterraformer says:
Good question. A) I live in a state where many misdemeanors fit the definition of >2 years so I made an assumption. B) Assuming he was in OH when he was first convicted, this would not be the case and he was fine and I was wrong.
December 8, 2010, 9:32 pmMalvolio says:
There you go. Keeping a crazed sex poodle out of the White House is a legitimate interest in and of itself.
Seriously, I think felon disenfranchisement is (intentionally) a wholly symbolic step. How many felons are even likely to vote if given the chance?
December 8, 2010, 9:42 pmGuy says:
Striking down bans for nonviolent misdemeanants sounds right to me.
December 8, 2010, 10:41 pmZiz says:
Is there any substantive limitation on which felonies can cause people to lose certain constitutional rights? I’m thinking of hypothetical situations in which, for instance, the state legislature decides that jaywalking and speeding 1 mph over the limit will be felonies.
December 9, 2010, 12:12 amwhit says:
you don’t even need a misdemeanor conviction. all you need is a domestic violence related protection order against you – no crime need be proven at all, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
you can thank the War on Domestic Violence ™…
at least a misdemeanor conviction requires actual conviction (1) of a crime (2) by a beyond a reasonable doubt standard (3) by a jury of one’s peers (4)
a protection order requires NONE of the above. it would seem that if the former is unconstitutional how can the latter not be…
December 9, 2010, 3:41 amDoc Merlin says:
‘Tomas had been “convicted in 1991 of Attempted Trafficking of Marijuana, a first-degree misdemeanor.” The court applied strict scrutiny, and concluded:’
Awesome! a precedent of strict scrutiny in a 2nd amendment case!
December 9, 2010, 4:23 amMike says:
The interesting thing is, none of this matters as far as Tomas’s actual right to own a gun. He’s still can’t buy one under federal law, because of the limited restrictions in place.
The state legislature *may* be changing their restoration laws this week, actually, to fix that, but it’s unclear whether they can get the legislation to a vote before the session expires.
December 9, 2010, 9:43 amEugene Volokh says:
Mike: Why exactly would he be disqualified under federal law?
December 9, 2010, 9:57 amOhio Court Finds 2A Rights for Misdemeanants | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] Ohio legislature is looking to fix this issue as we speak, but an Ohio Court of Common Pleas has found that non-violent misdemeanants, in this case people who have had a misdemeanor drug conviction in their past, can’t be [...]
December 9, 2010, 10:42 amMike says:
I’m not a legal expert, so his case could be different, but under normal circumstances in Ohio the judicial process for regaining the right to bear arms is not recognized by federal courts due to some technicality. It’s a big issue with 2nd amendment groups in Ohio.
I’m currently failing at finding a more legal-oriented description of the issue, but here is one article on the problem.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7546
As I said, the particular details of this cause could mean that the problem does not apply, I am not sure.
December 9, 2010, 11:39 amzippypinhead says:
Not correct, and there’s also no need for this defendant to also be granted relief from disability, because he’s not under a Federal firearms possession disability in the first place. 18 U.S.C. §922(g) sets out the grounds under which individuals are prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law. §922(g)(1) prohibits possession by anyone “who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” That’s consistent with the general definition of a Federal felony; however §921(a)(20) cuts back the scope of this prohibition for certain state convictions even further, because it also excludes from the definition of “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” any “state offense classified . . . as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.”
In other words, the Federal firearms prohibition does not apply to any state “misdemeanor” punishable by up to two years imprisonment. The trial court didn’t address the specifics of the maximum punishment for the underlying 1991 misdemeanor conviction, but it likely didn’t need to – a first degree misdemeanor under Ohio law is only punishable by up to 180 days imprisonment, at least under current state law. Ohio Rev. Code 2929.24.
Likewise, §922(g)(3), prohibiting firearms possession by any current “unlawful user of or addict[ of] any controlled substance” also would not on its face apply to a two-decade old drug conviction, at least not without much more recent evidence of drug use/addiction. See also Ohio Rev. Code 2923.13(4) (similar to the Federal prohibition).
So Federal law does not prohibit this defendant from purchasing or possessing a firearm (this of course leaves aside the semi-unrelated question of whether Ohio is reporting this type of misdemeanor to NICS or its own state firearms purchase instant check system, which would presumably still mess up the defendant’s ability to purchase firearms from FFLs).
December 9, 2010, 11:54 amMike says:
Thank you for the correction.
December 9, 2010, 12:39 pmLarryA says:
Not disagreeing with you, but I note that this prohibition is at least not permanent. It doesn’t outlast the order.
Not if you plead out or plead no contest, as a lot of people did before the Lautenberg Amendment passed.
December 9, 2010, 12:52 pmGBED989 says:
@ Whit
I believe that society in general does not find it unreasonable that a defendant in a domestic violence case should lose his or her right to possess guns during that period in which the restraining order is active. The Supreme Court interpreatation of the Second Amendment did not say the right to bear arms is absolute. Reasonable men and women expect reasonable rules.
December 9, 2010, 1:15 pmhattio says:
GBED989,
December 9, 2010, 1:48 pmWhy do you think it’s reasonable? Again, you have to remember that these restraining orders are typically issued ex parte, without any input by the defendant. Why should someone lose their gun rights just because someone claims they have been violent, when the defendant has no chance to defend themselves?
Mike says:
I significantly dislike when either side in this debate starts throwing “reasonable” or “common sense” around.
A defendant under a restraining order is still innocent until proven guilty. He still has the right to defend himself against attackers. And if he is bent on using a gun in an illegal fashion, he can acquire one illegally just as well.
Reasonable men do expect reasonable rules. I do not consider removing a constitutional right (even a limited one) based on only an accusation reasonable, even if you do.
December 9, 2010, 1:49 pmhattio says:
GBED989,
December 9, 2010, 1:55 pmAnd I should add, they are not technically defendants in a criminal case. Or at leas they are not automatically defendants in a criminal case. They can lose their gun rights even if a prosecutor looked at the case and decided it was BS.
Dilan Esper says:
The War on Domestic Violence was a response to the epic failure of police departments and officers across the country to take the problem seriously, which led to even more violence against women.
So now, women are able to quickly get a restraining order against abusers. And they have to offer an evidentiary showing that abuse is threatened or has occurred.
So, once that showing is made, you let the abuser keep his guns. Well, let’s see, why might that be a bad idea?
[It seems to me that the correct standard here is to require a showing of actual or threatened violence and to permit the gun owner an evidentiary hearing to rebut the claim. Non-violent offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors, should not result in a stripping of Second Amendment rights. We'll see if the courts get to that point.]
December 9, 2010, 2:38 pmhattio says:
Dilan Esper says,
December 9, 2010, 3:57 pmSo, once that showing is made, you let the abuser keep his guns. Well, let’s see, why might that be a bad idea?
Bruce Hayden says:
I think that you really need to distinguish between what has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, what has been stipulated under duress, what has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and what has been alleged ex parte.
I think that a prohibition on gun ownerships after a conviction of a felony here is perfectly justified. But that isn’t what we are mostly talking about here. Rather, at worse, there may be a misdemeanor conviction, likely agreed to in a deal that doesn’t require any additional time in jail. Or, it could just be a TRO or preliminary injunction. Remember, a restraining order is typically equitable relief, and so there is nothing, besides a judge’s sole discretion, standing between the guy (invariably) and losing his right to own a gun for life. And, if she is lawyered up, or at least has some sort of domestic counselor or advocate on her side, it can be quite one sided.
And, how often do judges include that the guys will lose this right in their questions to the guys before accepting a domestic violence plea deal or restraining order stipulation? My guess is that it is not all that often.
The problem that I see here is that the deck is now significantly stacked against guys in the realm of domestic violence. Not only are there many more resources available to the supposedly abused women, but there seems to be a tendency to side with the later when it is truly a he-says/she-says situation. Compounding this, many jurisdictions now require that one party or the other be cited when the police are called out to deal with domestic violence, and what used to be solved by a cooling off period, now often results in the guys losing their 2nd Amdt. rights for the rest of their lives.
December 9, 2010, 4:10 pmBruce Hayden says:
And what does that evidence have to be? That the woman is hospitalized? Or, maybe, that he raised his voice to her? If the woman is physically harmed, and the guy isn’t, then fine.
And why might that be a bad idea? Well, maybe she is lying. Maybe she instigated the fight in the first place.
Let me suggest that women are the aggressors at least as much, and I suspect much more, than the men. And, if common stereotypes have any validity, much, much, more. A woman nags and verbally abuses her husband for years. And, then one day, he threatens to close her mouth for her, if she doesn’t close it herself. And, now, he has lost his 2nd Amdt. rights for life.
The problem is that this sort of standard rewards women for the fact that they tend to be more verbal than men, and the men tend to be more physical, or at least evidence a verbal willingness to be more physical.
December 9, 2010, 4:18 pmwhit says:
well yes. the argument was that the retroactive nature of the prohibition wasn’t punitive, it was “administrative” or some such rubbish. iirc, many cops lost their jobs, who had pled out to very minor assaults (dV related) like shoving their partner. they had pled out and kept their jobs, but once those retroactive restrictions kicked in, they could no longer carry a gun
December 9, 2010, 4:49 pmwhit says:
no jurisdiction requires a cite (or arrest) unless there is probable cause for a crime. this is a pernicious myth.
it doesn’t matter WHAT we were called FOR. it matters if there is PC of a crime. in many dv’s, BOTH parties have some cuplability. our job is to determine “primary aggressor” in assaults.
December 9, 2010, 4:51 pmwhit says:
this isn’t about “women”. it’s about petitioners. ime, whomever goes to the court FIRST gets the order. usually, that’s the woman, but the “right” is available to men, too
here’s what happens. the petitioner goes to court, is coached by a DV advocate (often) and provides a sworn statement. there is no opportunity for the other 1/2 to rebut or clarify.
if a judge likes the statement, he issues an order. about 2 weeks later, there is a hearing to determine whether to extend the order. at that hearing both sides get to tell their story
but it’s
1) to a judge not jury
2) the standard is preponderance
3) no specific crime need be proven
4) there is no right to free assistance by an attorney
an order will NOT stop somebody actually determined to commit violence, with a gun or not. it’s a piece of paper.
December 9, 2010, 4:55 pmwhit says:
these often are NOT defendants in ANY criminal case.
the order does not require any pending criminal charges whatsoever. nor does any criminal charge have to be proven, or even charged.
note that at least in my jurisdiction
1) restraining orders are issued pursuant to divorce/seperation and often are not criminal claused and often say nothing about gun rights
2) protective orders are issued via petition by a person who comes to court. these are the orders we are talking about.
3) no contact orders are issued pursuant to arrest
(2) are the issue I am discussing.
this is not about “absolute rights”. this is about taking away a right w/
1) no crime charged or proven
December 9, 2010, 5:02 pm2) no right to an attorney
3) no trial by jury
4) preponderance standard
Dilan Esper says:
If your argument is that there should be more procedural safeguards for accused abusers, I agree.
If your argument is that women routinely falsify charges of domestic violence, or that courts shouldn’t be able to act to quickly protect women who are victimized or threatened, I think your attitude is reflective of exactly why we had to take this issue away from police officers, who got a lot of women beaten and killed because of their preconceived notions about the issue of domestic violence.
December 9, 2010, 6:09 pmwhit says:
my argument is that taking away somebody’s civil rights based on very minimal (hardly “due) process is wrong.
it’s not about what you are implying, which is nothing whatsoever close to what i said.
the issue is that prohibiting a person from carrying a firearm does NOT “protect women” (or MEN… this is NOT gender specific legislatio despite the way you keep framing it).
if a respondent to an order intends to shoot and kill somebody, a piece of paper won’t stop them
an order could, for example, significantly increase the penalties of an order violation IF the respondent was carrying a gun after service and offer other things like they do.
the issue is that taking away people’s civil rights w/o due process is wrong. regardless of whether it’s done to protect women, men, or aardvarks
December 9, 2010, 6:22 pmGBED989 says:
@ Whit
I don’t know how it works in other states but in Massachusetts a judge issues a temporary order and then schedules a hearing where both parties may appear and argue his or her case for or against the issuance of the restraining order. The order is issued for not longer than year but, it maybe issued for less than a year. After a year another hearing is held to decide if the order should be extended. So, there is plenty due process built into the Massachusetts law. Usually, after the year the weapons are returned if there have not been any reported problems.
December 9, 2010, 6:58 pmwhit says:
again, i disagree that is due process and as a former MA police officer, I’m aware of how it works there (209a orders iirc).
1) no crime need be proven or even charged criminally
2) only a preponderance standard for the order hearing
3) no right to an attorney
4) no right to a jury
i recall filling out a # of 209a forms when i was in MA, but it was a long time ago so I don’t remember ALL the details.
December 9, 2010, 7:02 pmGBED989 says:
Well, the system in MA may not be perfect for everyone but it works and it has significantly reduced the number of homicides by firearms in domestic violence cases.
December 9, 2010, 7:10 pmwhit says:
1) there are all sorts of ways we can reduce crime/homicides if we are willing to toss away civil rights
December 9, 2010, 7:17 pm2) you are assuming a causal connection.
hattio says:
GBED989,
December 9, 2010, 8:07 pmDamn I hate agreeing with whit. But, he’s right. That’s not due process in any reasonable reading of due process, especially because the respondent loses their gun rights temporarily until the hearing, has to appear at the hearing where a judge has ALREADY made findings of DV, and convince the judge they were wrong, and if they don’t they lose their gun rights.
More importantly, it’s pretty hard to show that these laws have prevented gun deaths. Yes, I’m sure gun deaths in MA, have gone down. They’ve gone down everywhere else in the country too, and have been going steadily down since, the mid 60′s I think. None of that shows causation.
Finally, if we outlawed guns altogether, along with extremely high penalties for ownership, I’m sure gun deaths would decline further. Of course, there’s that little matter of a Constitutional right involved.
whit says:
i agree with everything except, i’m not at all convinced if we banned guns altogether, that gun deaths would go down.
furthermore, who cares about gun deaths? i care about UNLAWFUL killings (murder/manslaughter).
but as usual, when you agree with me, and i *know* you love to do it – you are of course correct.
December 9, 2010, 8:28 pmwhit says:
also, fwiw – at least in one of the cases I heard of , the respondent did not lose their gun rights based on the temporary order (prior to hearing), even though it was DV related temporary order (coworker of mine).
i’ve served a # of these orders (temporary) and in some there was an order to recover firearms, and in others – not.
i know that once the order is made permanent, there will be a firearms restriction, although there is a possibility to appeal for an exception (like for work), but that’s hard to get and quite a burden.
December 9, 2010, 8:34 pmlawless says:
I wonder when we’ll get a ruling on non-violent felons? There was a recent lawsuit in Tennessee where a non-violent felon(drug offense)was pardoned(and gun rights specifically restored), but the judge sided with the State and using intermediate scrutiny decided the pardoned non-violent felon had no right to possess.
December 9, 2010, 9:09 pmDavid Scott Blackwell v. State of Tennessee, Davidson County Chancery Court #10-0739-III date 11-23-2010
GBED989 says:
@ Whit @ Hattio
The only additional comment that I can add at this point is we are a country of laws, laws passed by legislatures that were elected by its citizens. The both of you are a bit extreme in your views. There is not an outcry against these domestic violence statues that restrict the possession of firearms by those who have been deemed a risk to their spouses and girlfriends. I might be wrong on this but the NRA nor many other pro gun groups have challenged the legitimacy of government to enact laws that protect potential victims of domestic violence. I disagree with the liberals who, if they had their way, would take away all guns. Likewise, I disagree with those on the extreme right who believe there should be no rules that restrict possession in limited circumstances where public safety is involved. Without reasonable rules chaos follows.
December 9, 2010, 9:19 pmwhit says:
the “extreme” thing is just rhetoric. frankly, if it’s extreme to believe that taking away people’s civil rights w.o due process is wrong – then call me extreme.
the pendulum always swings. and too far. at one point, the dv laws and common police practices were way too lenient. so, of course, govt. kneejerked overresponded and passed legislation that swings too far
we have ceded way too many civil rights to the wars on drugs and domestic violence.
i fight nearly every day to protect victims of domestic violence AND those who are accused of same. as it should be.
December 9, 2010, 9:32 pmIan Argent says:
+1 to Whit for noting it isn’t about the gun deaths, its about the unlawful deaths. We don’t restrict access to knives, cars, or crossbows for subjects of restraining orders or DV misdemeanants. For a member of the general public, these are just as dangerous as a handgun, and in most cases, just about as dangerous as a longarm.
December 10, 2010, 9:01 amDilan Esper says:
You are begging the question. How much process is due? If you have an evidentiary hearing in which a woman convinces a judge that her life is in danger, with a right for the man to be heard and to have counsel and an available appellate process, that’s enough, it seems to me.
And yes, this is specifically a female-male issue. As I said, really thanks to your male-dominated profession and its sympathy for wife-beaters, a lot of women got killed or maimed before cops’ discretion was finally, and properly, taken away. This is about gender equality in the real world, which requires that we take the threats to women from their husbands and boyfriends seriously.
December 10, 2010, 3:29 pmDilan Esper says:
I’m not on the side of banning guns, but this is really dead wrong. Actually, EVERY killing matters. Even ones that are justifiable homicide. Or accidental and not unlawful.
For instance, I am sure that whit’s police department, like every other, had rules about the use of deadly force that were stricter than the legal standard of what could get a police officer convicted of murder. In other words, there were officer-involved shootings that were not illegal but which nonetheless the department sought to prevent. And that’s entirely appropriate. The goal isn’t to shoot criminals, after all; it’s to arrest them, hopefully without shooting them (for all sorts of reasons).
Or, to use another hypothetical, suppose there were a lot of justifiable shootings of home invaders and the local police department decided to step up patrols, which reduced the number of shootings. Under whit’s logic, that wouldn’t be a desirable public policy objective.
So yeah, it’s an appropriate public policy goal to reduce ALL gun violence to the extent practicable, whether or not it is unlawful. Some lawful gun violence, of course, is inevitable and justifiable, but that doesn’t mean the goal shouldn’t be to reduce it wherever possible.
December 10, 2010, 3:33 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Reducing lawful justifiable gun deaths isn’t something that is in the control of anyone but the justifiably shot assailants (though third-party actions such as increased patrols may help affect those choices as you note). As long as they keep putting people in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm they are creating the possibility of their own death. If they don’t act unlawfully there can be no lawful justifiable killing.
Thus I’m not sure, upon reflection, how “[wherever] possible” it can be to reduce that particular kind of violence and thus how much effort and time should be wasted on it policy-wise.
In that sense, the only kind of violence that really does “matter” in practice is unlawful violence. Focussing on the criminal actor, not the non-criminal.
December 10, 2010, 6:12 pmIan Argent says:
Here’s the thing – inflicting harm is already illegal? What is so special about a firearm death versus any other kind of death, such as a dometic knifing or beating, a literal vitriolic attack, or a crossbow shot? Why care about one specific tool when there’s a whole arsenal of mayhem in everday life?
Why single out firearms for special attention in these situations? It’s not like a firearm is so much more dangerous to the victim of domestic abuse than any other weapon, and in fact there’s rather more danger from certain types of attacks that are completely impossible to stop without locking up the perpetrator pre-emptively (torching the house or car, for example).
A firearm is not a magic wand, any more than a restraining order is a magic shield. If you’re worried about male-on-female violence, you should be in favor of more-easily-accessible firearms, as the male of the species is typically stronger, particularly in the ways that matter in a physical confrontation.
December 10, 2010, 6:21 pmGBED989 says:
@ Ian Argent
I am not sure what to make of your comment. It is well know, in the law enforcement and criminal justice communities atleast, that more than any weapon, firearms are the most significant risk factor in domestic violence cases. All fifty states have domestic violence laws where the seizure of firearms, when warranted, are required. Follow this link for more details: follow this link.
December 10, 2010, 11:55 pmChem_Geek says:
Citing to VPC gets your comment *zero* credibility.
Besides, (Archie Bunker voice) Would you feel better if she was knifed or burnt or run over wid’ a car? (/Archie Bunker voice)
December 11, 2010, 11:05 amIan Argent says:
Thank you, Chem_Geek.
Unless you’re going to claim that most domestic violence victims are dead I don’t think we can say that firearms are a significant method of committing domestic violence. Firearms being a terrible method of injuring someone short of death, after all.
December 11, 2010, 11:11 amGBED989 says:
@ Chem_Geek @ Ian Argent
I see you guys are set in your ways. Why don’t we leave it here, just obey the law and everything will be fine.
December 11, 2010, 11:44 amIan Argent says:
If the law didn’t have the possibility to disarm someone on what amounts to hearsay evidence, I wouldn’t care.
Here’s the thing; laws like this purport to do the impossible, which is allow the government to pre-empt criminal acts. Which is why I brought up all the things that an abuser can use instead of a firearm, and why it’s relevant that most domestic abuse doesn’t involve firearms. By concentrating on the firearm instead of the actor, you give the victim a false sense of security – namely that without the firearm the accused (not convicted) aggressor is rendered harmless, and that doing so proactively both serves the interest of the state and that taking away firearms (and only firearms) will not impact the accused (not convicted) aggressor at all.
December 11, 2010, 6:27 pm