Carl Folsom III recently testified before the Kansas legislature regarding the impact of State v. Hendrix, No. 97323, (Oct. 23, 2009). In Hendrix, the Kansas Supreme Court held that, while a person has a statutory right to use force to defend themself, that same person does not have a right to threaten force to defend themself. For instance, imagine that you own a gun and walk in on someone robbing your house. If you shoot the burglar without giving them a chance to flee or surrender, you will not face criminal charges. However, if you tell the burglar to get out or you’ll shoot, you are guilty of aggravated assault. The opinion was the epitome of “shoot first, ask questions later.”
Because the Kansas Supreme Court blamed the statutes at issue for their holding, the Kansas Legislature got busy fixing the problem. In the process of doing so, Carl Folsom III was asked to come testify in front of a committee of the Kansas House of Representatives regarding the specific statutory language required. After his testimony, the bill was voted out of the full House, and the Senate later passed its own version.
After the United States Supreme Court held that people have a right to self-defense and to possess firearms in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. _____ (2008), and with its upcoming decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243, 08-4244, illegal possession of a firearm will be a much bigger issue in state and federal courts.
If you or a loved one is facing a state or federal charge relating to possession of a firearm, make sure you contact a firm that has experience arguing Second Amendment issues. At Bell Folsom, P.A., our attorneys have recent experience arguing these issues, including:
Mr. Folsom has in the Kansas appeals courts that a person has a Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm.
Mr. Bell has argued in state district court that a person is entitled to possess a hunting rifle even after they’ve been convicted of a felony as long as the felony was non-violent.
Mr. Folsom is preparing to argue that a person is entitled to openly carry a firearm when there is no law prohibiting it.
Mr. Bell has argued in federal court that the Second Amendment completely bars any prosecution of being an illegal immigrant in possession of a firearm.
It’s important to choose a firm that knows the latest developments in the law, how to frame those developments to your case, and make a persuasive argument based on those developments. When you or your loved one’s freedom is on the line, don’t settle for an attorney who hasn’t focused on these issues. Contact us today so that we can start helping you today.