ADVERTISEMENT

Former Iowa City gang member sues to restore his gun rights

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,437
62,545
113
An Iowa City man convicted of gang-related offenses 32 years ago is suing the governor’s office over the loss of his right to own a gun.



Anthony Browne, 52, is suing Gov. Kim Reynolds and Johnson County Sheriff Brad Kunkel in the U.S. District for the Southern in District of Iowa.


Browne claims his past convictions for a violent crime should not have resulted in the permanent loss of his right to keep and bear arms. He argues that his criminal sentences were fully discharged 25 years ago and that he has had his other rights as a citizen restored for the past 18 years.



According to Browne, he was convicted in 1991 of felony willful injury and criminal gang participation and sentenced to 10 years in prison on the first charge and five years in prison on the second, with the two terms to be served concurrently.


While serving his sentence at the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison, Browne began taking correspondence courses through the University of Iowa. He completed his sentence in January 1998, and in July 2005, then-Gov. Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring all of Browne’s rights to citizenship except for his right to purchase, carry or possess a firearm. Later that same year, Browne was awarded a degree in computer science from the UI.


Since 2006, Browne says, he has been employed full time and has been a registered voter in Johnson County. From April 2019 to December 2021, Browne says, he held a high-level security clearance with the U.S. Department of Defense for his computer work at Collins Aerospace.


In his lawsuit, Browne states the governor has the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons for all offenses and has the power to restore the right to keep and bear arms. He notes that in January 2011, then-Gov. Terry Branstad signed an executive order revoking Vilsack’s order, and in August 2020, Reynolds signed an order that restored some felons’ citizenship rights — neither of which had any impact on Browne’s loss of his right to own a firearm.


The suit, filed first in state court before being moved to federal court, seeks a declaratory ruling that would restore Browne’s right to possess firearms.


The county and the governor’s office have yet to file a response to the lawsuit. Johnson County Attorney Rachel Zimmermann Smith and a spokesperson for the governor did not immediately respond to requests for comment.


Crime and Courts Newsletter Signup​


Newsletter Signup
checkmark-yellow.png
Delivered to your inbox






Court records indicate Browne’s convictions stem from a 1991 incident that involved Browne, Buddy Black and other members of the Black Gangster Disciples who had an altercation with a rival gang member, Dewey Lamp. Browne, Black and others followed Lamp home and when Black, who was carrying a handgun, approached a window of the house, a figure inside the home came into view. A member of the gang yelled “cap the (expletive),” and Black fired the gun, with the bullet striking Dewey Lamp’s mother and puncturing her lung.


Browne was charged with aiding and abetting attempted murder, willful injury and criminal gang participation. He was acquitted on the aiding and abetting charge but was convicted of the other two offenses.


Browne told the Iowa Capital Dispatch he and his wife plan to move to Illinois where, by state law, he can petition to have his right to own a firearm restored. But the restoration of his rights there is predicated on the restoration of his rights in Iowa, the state where his crimes were committed.


Browne said he wants his rights restored for the same reason anyone might: for hunting, to protect his home and to engage in recreational target shooting.


“My father in-law is a former Linn County sheriff,” he said. “They’ve all got AR-15s, guns everywhere. Every time I go to their home, they’ve got guns everywhere in their house. They go shooting out in rural Johnson County … They go, they shoot, they shoot off fireworks, they do it all. I go out there with them and I’m watching them do it — but I just can’t possess firearms or ammunition because of this.”

 
Gun nut here:

Here is some context I found.



He appears to have been present but not actually thr shooter in his crime, though he may have been the one that yelled "cap that bitch".


Assuming there has been no other crimes, or any other red flags, this person should have the rights restored.


It's easy to play judge and juror from.my house though.
 
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rules that a former felon can have his gun rights restored because laws prohibiting an Anthony Browne from owning a gun are not applicable since Anthony Browne was not born until 1971.
 
Put me on the side of “too bad”. He was a convicted felon. It’s not like he was not exonerated. He knew the consequences now looking for an exception— probably due to attention whoring needs.
 
On one hand, great job getting your life together and becoming a valuable contributor to society. I wholeheartedly applaud that.

On the other hand, "life is a series of decisions that define you the rest of your life in both small and large ways."

Now, me personally, when Vilsack restored to him everything except this one right...to me that is pretty telling. I'm not rubber stamping "no" to this, and this citizen has my respect to how he has turned his life around apparently for the better.

I just honestly don't know what I'd do here - this is a tough one. To me, I guess the best way to say this appears to have been decided once already for his individual case - that's as far as my thinking goes.
 
I’m ok with it as long as it comes with the contingency that if you have your 2nd amendment rights restored after a felony, and then commit another gun crime, you go to prison for a very, very long time.
 
Gun nut here:

Here is some context I found.



He appears to have been present but not actually thr shooter in his crime, though he may have been the one that yelled "cap that bitch".


Assuming there has been no other crimes, or any other red flags, this person should have the rights restored.


It's easy to play judge and juror from.my house though.
Gun nuts have small dicks.
 
Once a felon, always a felon. Unless you’re somehow exonerated, then f*** off with your whining about losing rights because you are/were a POS. Actions have consequences. You can be one the next Mother Theresa, but that doesn’t make up for your decision to be a felon.
I think this is less about wanting to own a gun again and more about wanting attention.
 
If the right to bear arms is as important as I hear it is all the time, why shouldn’t this man have his rights restored?

Because he has a felony and that is the law. I assume you are in the all or nothing camp based on that childish type of logic (and attempt at a “gotcha” moment).
 
Because he has a felony and that is the law. I assume you are in the all or nothing camp based on that childish type of logic (and attempt at a “gotcha” moment).
No. It seems to me that this person in particular has served his time and shown that he has earned having his rights restored.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT