Justices agreed Wednesday to hear the case of Brian Bragdon, who was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder, shooting into an occupied vehicle, discharging a firearm from a vehicle and being a felon in possession of a firearm, according to a document in the case.
Bragdon argued that he fired the gun while trying to defend himself and sought to get the charges dismissed under Stand Your Ground. But a circuit judge ruled that Bragdon was prevented from seeking immunity because he was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm at the time of the shooting, and the 4th District Court of Appeal also ruled against him
via Does Stand Your Ground apply to felons? Florida Supreme Court will decide | jacksonville.com.
I have not been able to find an accurate description of the events that lead to the shooting. My take is that if he was involved in any way-shape or form with some sort of ruckus (from what I gather, he was at a night establishment) he is not gonna get a favorable verdict.
However if he was targeted for whatever reason and was not initiator/contributor, he will probably get a favorable verdict just like Aaron Little did. By the way, I do not know if Little got charged & tried for Felon in possession of a firearm.
The second amendment does not say “shall not be infringed, unless”, there are no qualifications, felon in possession is pure crap.
Yes it is. If a person has served their time, they should have ALL of their rights restored. As David Codrea is fond of saying, “if you can’t be trusted with a gun, you can’t be trusted without a custodian”. I agree with him. If they aren’t trustworthy enough to have a gun why are they walking loose.
I’m thinking the likely response is going to be he’s entitled to SYG, but as a separate issue will be charged with illegal possession of the gun.
Just because I can’t see the court throwing out those rules. And, after all, SYG should apply to any type of self defense: hands, feet, sticks, and stones.
Again, like you said, “if he was targeted for whatever reason and was not initiator/contributor” and it’s clear self-defense.
The 2nd DCA has it right, although as usual the media is greatly confusing things by inappropriately mixing distinct legal concepts.
Certainly at play here is self-defense immunity. That means that if you can demonstrate to a hearing judge by a preponderance of the evidence (a vastly higher standard than you need to meet to win on self-defense at trial) then you will be awarded immunity from criminal prosecution and civil suit.
Perhaps at play–hard to tell from these brief recounting of the facts–is “Stand-Your-Ground,” which relieves a person from an otherwise existing duty to retreat, if he meets the conditions of self-defense. Whether “Stand-Your-Ground” plays a role depends on the facts of the case and whether a duty to retreat would otherwise have existed.
But self-defense immunity and “Stand-Your-Ground” are two entirely different legal doctrines. Period. Some states have one, some states have the other, some states have both, and some states have neither. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
Under Florida law, neither doctrine should be affected by whether the defender was a felon-in-possession or committing some other incidental offense (e.g., one not directly tied to the need to use force, such as being the aggressor in the fight). A felon-in-possession ought to be entitled to use that illegally carried gun to defend himself from a deadly-force attack if he is at no fault in the attack–and then be charged and tried for the gun possession.
(Note, however, that some states, like Tennessee, condition self-defense on not being engaged in any unlawful activity–in TN, a felon-in-possession would be ineligible to argue self-defense under any circumstances.)
By the way, there ARE circumstances in which self-defense CAN justify a felon-in-possession, but the threat against which the felon has armed himself must be imminent–he snatches up a pistol at the last minute. It’s never found to justify the routine carry of a pistol for a threat that might occur or which is speculative.
As an aside, I also agree with the school of thought that felon-in-possession laws are silly. If the felon is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun–and there’s no practical way of keeping him from obtaining one if he wishes it–then he’s too dangerous to be released upon the public.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Since police have no duty to protect an individual without a special relationship, then does it not make sense that if the police can not be held responsibility to protect an individual, that individual has the right to carry a gun.
Should felons for non-violent crimes (taxes) be prevented from owning guns??
My take: No. Malum Prohibitum felonies should not be taken in consideration provided the person served the full time and/or provided restitution.