Supreme court case, who won?

I need to know who won in this 1980's Supreme Court case about the second amendment. Here's a description

Lewis v. U.S. (1980)

Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 forbids the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Lewis, the petitioner, was convicted of a felony in a 1961 state court "for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor". In 1977, in Virginia, Lewis was charged with receiving and possessing a firearm in violation of the above act. Lewis, claimed his latest conviction violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because he had no counsel present during his 1961 trial.

The court upheld Lewis' conviction, holding:

(a)...the fact that there are remedies available to a convicted felon - removal of the firearm disability by a qualifying pardon or the Secretary of the Treasury's consent, as specified in the Act, or a challenge to the prior conviction in an appropriate court proceeding - suggests that Congress intended that the defendant clear his status before obtaining a firearm, thereby fulfilling Congress' purpose to keep firearms away from persons classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous.

(b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm. And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109; United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443; and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473.

In a footnote the court stated:

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia").

Note, the Court restated the Miller court's focus on the type of firearm.

The Court also commented it was customary to deny convicted felons the right to vote, hold union office, or practice medicine.

Complete text of Lewis v. U.S., 445 U.S. 55 (1980).


Copied directly from . I only pasted this to show you what the case is about. Using this information it's hard for me to tell what the outcome and impact was of this case. Can anyone help?

2 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Lewis lost, the US won. Congress may prohibit felons from posessing firearms.

    The fact that Lewis didn't have a lawyer for the conviction that made him a felon in the first place doesn't matter.

    A good source is the actual syllabus from the case.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    First, the perfect courtroom did no longer do something different than say that the regulation enacted in California (and greater than a number of alternative different states) would not conflict with federal regulation. 2d, your fact of the regulation is faulty. The regulation components that everybody who has attended a California extreme college for 3 years will pay in-state training. This regulation applies the two to criminal and unlawful citizens of the USA which contains those resident in any State interior the union. that's significant for human beings decrease than 18, whose criminal place of abode is that for the duration of their mum and dad. they are able to nevertheless come to California for 3 years of highschool and pay in state training. Get your info without delay in the previous commencing a communicate.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.