If you are a prior felon with a current gun charge, and want to raise the argument that the Justice Department's recent policy switch on the Second Amendment presents a new ground upon which to contest your charges, you better be able to afford it. At least in Northern California.

According to No Free Ride For Gun Argument, Chief Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that there will be no compensation for lawyers appointed under the Criminal Justice Act who raise that particular challenge.

The Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment and payment for an indigent defendant's attorney (on quite a reduced scale) when the Federal Defender's Office cannot represent the defendant--usually because of a conflict of interest.

Judge Patel does not think the Second Amendment argument has merit. She may be right. But should she be deciding that poor defendants cannot even raise it?

If the argument is not raised in the trial court, the defendant will be precluded from arguing it on appeal. And maybe the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges would see it differently.

Her words: "The court will not reimburse attorneys out of CJA [Criminal Justice Act] funds for such useless time."

In case you haven't been following this topic, the beef is over the Justice Department's policy switch from holding that the Second Amendment is an collective right to it being a personal right.