The Charlotte Observer ran an editorial yesterday criticizing the NC Supreme Court for holding that a law that deprived a non-violent felon of all his gun rights was unconstitutional (as applied to that individual).
I wrote about the case here.
In making its argument, the paper explains:
In 1995, the legislature created a concealed-carry law for firearms,
but adopted tighter gun controls, including a ban on ex-felons having
guns. The law might not have passed without those controls. In 2004,
the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, saying it was
regulatory in nature and not intended as punishment. It said the ban
aimed ?to protect the public from those felons whose possession of guns
? was the most reason to fear.?
I doubt it was intentional, but the editorial, in my opinion, would lead many readers to think that the 4th Circuit was reviewing the same exact law that the NC Supreme Court was reviewing.
In 2004, the legislature amended the gun laws. The 4th Circuit Court was reviewing the pre-2004 law that allowed guns to be possessed by felons in homes and places of business and also didn’t prohibit all guns. These exceptions were very important to the 4th Circuit. The NC Supreme Court was reviewing the 2004 law where these exceptions no longer existed.
The paper does mention some of the 2004 changes to the law, but never clarifies that the 4th Circuit and NC Supreme Court analyzed two different laws.
The last part of the editorial is “amazing”:
In any case, the Supreme Court’s ill-conceived decision to change state
policy for one sympathetic plaintiff and open the door to other
would-be ex-felon gun owners is appalling. It was a good law the N.C.
Supreme Court would have been wiser to leave intact.
Let me get this straight. A case that will protect the rights of other ex-felons is appalling? The Court didn’t “change state policy”–it ruled a law unconstitutional as it applied to one individual because it was overbroad. It would have been appalling if the Court decided that the law was constitutional simply because others also might get the chance to protect their constitutional rights.