View Single Post
Old March 31, 2013, 12:17 PM   #11
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
To see exactly what the Federal Government is saying, I need only quote from the original Motion to Dismiss from the Enos district court:

Quote:
Second, the test for whether one’s civil rights have been restored is whether the individual has regained his right to vote, to sit on a jury, and to hold public office. See Logan, 552 U.S. at 28 (construing the sister statute for felons and stating that “[w]hile 921(a)(20) does not define the term ‘civil rights,’ courts have held, and petitioner agrees, that the civil rights relevant under the above-quoted provision are the rights to vote, hold office, and serve on a jury.”); United States v. Valerio, 441 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). The fact that a state has restored an individual’s right to possess firearms is not enough. Valerio, 441 F.3d at 842-43; see also United States v. Andaverde, 64 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejecting the argument that an individual’s civil rights have been restored if state law has restored the individual’s right to bear arms).
That, in a nutshell, is where this case is. At the CA9, Donald Kilmer is attempting to have the courts recognize that an enumerated and declared fundamental right, is in fact, a civil right for purposes of interpreting the law.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03271 seconds with 8 queries