Here are the facts as presented to and apparently believed by the jury who acquitted Mr. Dupree of assault, but convicted him of the felony of possession of a firearm while under a disability:
Under Michigan law, if the defendant assert the affirmative defense of self defense, the prosecution must prove a lack of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Some states put the burden of proving self defense on the defendant.
By contrast, defendant and two other bystanders testified that the altercation began when Reeves shoved Adrian Dupree off the porch. Defendant told Reeves not to disrespect his sister-in-law and asked him to leave. Reeves then pushed defendant. The two men fell off the porch and began wrestling. Reeves’s shirt was pulled up, exposing a gun in the waistband of his pants. Defendant testified that he feared for his life because Reeves was larger than defendant, inebriated, and armed. Defendant stated that Reeves went for his gun and that defendant grabbed it to protect himself. As the two men struggled over the gun, defendant shot Reeves three times. Defendant kept the gun until he left with his female companion in her vehicle, throwing the gun out the window after he was some distance from the house.
As to how long after using the gun the felon may continue in possession, the court recited the following as to the facts in this case:
As I interpret the decision, the case was sent back to the trial court for a new trial that would allow a jury to decide if Mr. Dupree retained the gun too long after its necessity for self defense. Also, the court made the decision under the Michigan weapons disability law. I have not researched whether any such defense has been or would be recognized under the Federal firearms disability law.
Additionally, defendant testified that he retained possession of the gun after he and Reeves separated and that he threw the gun from the window of his female companion’s vehicle once they had driven some distance from the house. However, the testimony is unclear whether Reeves remained in the vicinity of the house before defendant left the scene with his female companion. The record is similarly unclear concerning at what point Reeves no longer posed a threat to defendant, particularly because the testimony suggests that Reeves continued to challenge defendant for possession of the gun even after he had been shot three times.
I want to make two points here. First, the Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago cases affirming the Second amendment rights could both be read to support a future finding of constitutional right to self defense under the Ninth Amendment (which says that the rights enumerated in the bill of right are not all the rights that citizens possess).
Second, the blanket disability for felons possessing firearms is wrong. Not all felonies are violent crimes. If a bookkeeper embezzles $501 to pay a medical bill, should that bookkeeper be forever barred from being able to possess a firearm for defense of home and family? Legislatures, such as Ohio, have ratcheted nonsupport of children to the ranks of felonies. but nothing about that crime suggests that the offender who is merely a deadbeat is any sort of risk with a firearm. As the nanny-statists turn more and more minor wrongs into serious crimes. the unfair affect of firearms disability laws only get worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment