I wanted to try and look at some additional background on this case: when the MD Supreme Court ruled on this, it was 6-1. The dissent noted that it could ensnare a person convicted of small crimes or petty crimes because the law has been advocating for harsher sentences. Why yes, as I mentioned above the feds wanted to prevent people even convicted of minor drug crimes to lose their weapons. The ban in this case is a federal issue, not really a state one. The state followed the law. Now I have also heard that the guns in his possession were actually illegally possessed to begin with, because he like... stole them, and attempted to pawn them. I don't believe this individual has a history of being an upstanding citizen gun owner. This case had multiple issues and questions such as, should the state of MD follow the federal law? (Well, what choice do they have under the law and the appeals courts ruled as such?) Should a person that is a convicted criminal and now also caught stealing and possessing guns he shouldn't have to begin with because of that federal law, be in bigger trouble? Certainly the act of stealing the guns would have landed him in felony territory anyway and he still would have had illegal possession charges because he stole them? He argued that he was a law abiding citizen, which is also dubious. How his lawyers attempted to frame it:
I understand this is being framed as a 2A issues, but man there are questions here. He's real mad about the child support thing, and he's real mad he got caught stealing guns. He was not a previous gun owner. He didn't go to a gun shop and say "I want a gun please let me fill out the background check"... nope, he just stole them for whatever purposes. I can only conclude he is not a good person or a responsible gun owner.