balackolama
Regular Member
imported post
where does it say in the original 2a that a former criminal can't have a gun?
where does it say in the original 2a that a former criminal can't have a gun?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
constitution
- Thread starter balackolama
- Start date
IndianaBoy79
Regular Member
imported post
It doesn't, but the constitution acts as a framework to govern a free people. Most people here would agree that certain rights get justly restricted/denied on a regular basis to criminals. You're right to freedom of assembly is denied when you are put in jail. Several other rights are restricted during a sentence and after as well. While on parole, many people are prohibited from certain fields of work and are even limited on where they may live and how far they can travel. When it comes to a violent criminal, I have no problem restricting their right to carry. The only issue I take is that we restrict certain criminals from carry when their crime was clearly non-violent.
Rights are only absolute when your rights don't interfere with mine. A convicted murderer having access to a gun arguably conflicts with my rights.
It doesn't, but the constitution acts as a framework to govern a free people. Most people here would agree that certain rights get justly restricted/denied on a regular basis to criminals. You're right to freedom of assembly is denied when you are put in jail. Several other rights are restricted during a sentence and after as well. While on parole, many people are prohibited from certain fields of work and are even limited on where they may live and how far they can travel. When it comes to a violent criminal, I have no problem restricting their right to carry. The only issue I take is that we restrict certain criminals from carry when their crime was clearly non-violent.
Rights are only absolute when your rights don't interfere with mine. A convicted murderer having access to a gun arguably conflicts with my rights.
Nevada carrier
Regular Member
imported post
The supreme Court has also said that state and federal government can take reasonable measures to regulate firearms. keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have proven to be untrustworthy is reasonable IMHO.
The only problem is that some states (Like Kalifornia and Illinois) Believe that restricting the people so far that they are virtually 100% disarmed is reasonable, to which I disagree.
The supreme Court has also said that state and federal government can take reasonable measures to regulate firearms. keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have proven to be untrustworthy is reasonable IMHO.
The only problem is that some states (Like Kalifornia and Illinois) Believe that restricting the people so far that they are virtually 100% disarmed is reasonable, to which I disagree.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
States routinely, following written law, after due process, restrict the rights of people who commit crimes. One of those rights so restricted is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I believe that a process should be available to restore those rights after a hearing during with the convicted criminal meets a burden of proof that he can be trusted not to break the law. It is unwise to allow someone with a demonstrated predisposition to break laws to carry a gun.
The first para is fact, the second, opinion.
States routinely, following written law, after due process, restrict the rights of people who commit crimes. One of those rights so restricted is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I believe that a process should be available to restore those rights after a hearing during with the convicted criminal meets a burden of proof that he can be trusted not to break the law. It is unwise to allow someone with a demonstrated predisposition to break laws to carry a gun.
The first para is fact, the second, opinion.
Old Grump
Regular Member
imported post
You are assuming the former criminal is no longer a criminal and if you can prove that I have no problem with him or her getting their second amendment rights back. On the other hand just because the criminal has paid his debt to society as provided for by the judicial system there is no guarantee he is no longer a criminal. Burden on the criminal to prove his intentions.
Constitution is a brief and very well thought out guideline, it is the law of the land. Not a comprehensive tome that covers all exigencies.
You are assuming the former criminal is no longer a criminal and if you can prove that I have no problem with him or her getting their second amendment rights back. On the other hand just because the criminal has paid his debt to society as provided for by the judicial system there is no guarantee he is no longer a criminal. Burden on the criminal to prove his intentions.
Constitution is a brief and very well thought out guideline, it is the law of the land. Not a comprehensive tome that covers all exigencies.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - as has been done for allegations of domestic violence and to stressed veterans.
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - as has been done for allegations of domestic violence and to stressed veterans.
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
IndianaBoy79 wrote:
Your rights to a gun are no more important than the convicted murder's rights to a gun.
If the person is too dangerous to be out in society, and has proven that by being convicted of murdering another member of society, then that murderer should not be out in society.... with, or without, a gun.
One more time....
It isn't the gun.
IndianaBoy79 wrote:
It isn't the gun. Attempting to control the access to a gun has been proven to not work in the least.
Your rights to a gun are no more important than the convicted murder's rights to a gun.
If the person is too dangerous to be out in society, and has proven that by being convicted of murdering another member of society, then that murderer should not be out in society.... with, or without, a gun.
One more time....
It isn't the gun.
hp-hobo
Regular Member
imported post
Thestatements in the four posts* above mine could all be used as lesson plans in Oppressive Government 101.
If the fed.state.gov can take "reasonable measures" to "restrict the rights" of citizens to keep and bear armsat their discretion (which we all agree that they already do), they can continually lower the requirements until their reasonable measures to restrict the rights of citizento keep and bear armsincludes everyone. Even you.
You can't buy a handgun because you got a speeding ticket. You can't purchase a rifle because you were suspended from high school for smoking. You can't buy ammunition because you bounced a check. All reasonable measure in somebody's mind.
No, if a person has committed a crime, served their sentence and are set free, then they are exactly that... Free. All of their rights should be restored. If they cannot be trusted to be truly free to exercise all of their rights, then they should remain incarcerated. The only gray area is when they're on parole. They're not truly free to do as they wish because they essentially have a contract restricting their movement and actions for a period of time.
Additionally, many (most?) people who are released from prison with a firearms disability end up living in not exactly the safest of places (at least temporarily)and need a firearm for true self defense worse than most of us. If they are free enough to be on the street, they need to be truly free.
The right to keep and bear arms belongs to all free US citizens. Taking reasonable measures to restrict rights sounds like something the Brady Bunch and the VPC want to do. Actually that sound exactly like what they want to do. Think about it.
* ETA: The four posts above DH.
Thestatements in the four posts* above mine could all be used as lesson plans in Oppressive Government 101.
If the fed.state.gov can take "reasonable measures" to "restrict the rights" of citizens to keep and bear armsat their discretion (which we all agree that they already do), they can continually lower the requirements until their reasonable measures to restrict the rights of citizento keep and bear armsincludes everyone. Even you.
You can't buy a handgun because you got a speeding ticket. You can't purchase a rifle because you were suspended from high school for smoking. You can't buy ammunition because you bounced a check. All reasonable measure in somebody's mind.
No, if a person has committed a crime, served their sentence and are set free, then they are exactly that... Free. All of their rights should be restored. If they cannot be trusted to be truly free to exercise all of their rights, then they should remain incarcerated. The only gray area is when they're on parole. They're not truly free to do as they wish because they essentially have a contract restricting their movement and actions for a period of time.
Additionally, many (most?) people who are released from prison with a firearms disability end up living in not exactly the safest of places (at least temporarily)and need a firearm for true self defense worse than most of us. If they are free enough to be on the street, they need to be truly free.
The right to keep and bear arms belongs to all free US citizens. Taking reasonable measures to restrict rights sounds like something the Brady Bunch and the VPC want to do. Actually that sound exactly like what they want to do. Think about it.
* ETA: The four posts above DH.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Bikenut wrote:
Bikenut wrote:
It isn't the gun, it is the control; control of guns, thoughts, freedom, money, opinion &c.
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
hp-hobo wrote:
hp-hobo wrote:
Well said!
balackolama
Regular Member
imported post
that brings me back to the soldier that had a DD
what if it was because he was gay and came out of the closet?
not that i support or like homo sapiens
that brings me back to the soldier that had a DD
what if it was because he was gay and came out of the closet?
not that i support or like homo sapiens
hp-hobo
Regular Member
imported post
balackolama wrote:
How many posts do you think you'll will you get in before being banned again?
balackolama wrote:
Trust me Eric, you don't get a dishonorable discharge for being a homosexual. Yours is becoming a bullsh*t argument. What a total shock.
How many posts do you think you'll will you get in before being banned again?
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
balackolama wrote:
I'm well aware that discussions often veer off into vectors only loosely related to OC and gun rights but the emphasis on this website/forum is still.... Open Carry.
balackolama wrote:
And this is connected to openly carrying a properly holstered sidearm.... exactly... how?
I'm well aware that discussions often veer off into vectors only loosely related to OC and gun rights but the emphasis on this website/forum is still.... Open Carry.
stainless1911
Banned
imported post
If you cant be trusted with the RKBA, then you shouldnt be out on the street.
If you cant be trusted with the RKBA, then you shouldnt be out on the street.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
stainless1911 wrote:
Not allowing someone to walk around in public and not allowing someone to carry a gun are two different levels of trust. The level of trust needed to restore RKBA is greater than the level of trust needed to restore the freedom to walk around among us. It is possible to trust someone enough not to lock him up, yet not enough to allow him to carry.
I can think of two examples off the top of my head: a medicated person with mental illness having a history of violence and a parolee. In both cases, we routinely trust the individual to walk around free. AFIK, there is no State that would allow either to carry a gun--which, IMO, is wise.
It should be a policy decision (not a rights decision) whether a convicted felon should be trusted with a gun and what he can do to re-earn the trust lost when he was convicted.
stainless1911 wrote:
I keep hearing that argument, but what bothered me about it kept eluding me. It just now hit. That argument is a false choice.
Not allowing someone to walk around in public and not allowing someone to carry a gun are two different levels of trust. The level of trust needed to restore RKBA is greater than the level of trust needed to restore the freedom to walk around among us. It is possible to trust someone enough not to lock him up, yet not enough to allow him to carry.
I can think of two examples off the top of my head: a medicated person with mental illness having a history of violence and a parolee. In both cases, we routinely trust the individual to walk around free. AFIK, there is no State that would allow either to carry a gun--which, IMO, is wise.
It should be a policy decision (not a rights decision) whether a convicted felon should be trusted with a gun and what he can do to re-earn the trust lost when he was convicted.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
balackolama wrote:
balackolama wrote:
Now this is funny. Considering the etymology of Homo sapiens, I would say Eric has never made a more accurate statement. Thanks for the chuckle.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
buster81 wrote:
buster81 wrote:
Thanks for saying something. I so wanted to.
virginiatuck
Regular Member
imported post
I think it's something that should be left to a court to decide on a case by case, individual basis (see below).
There are two points in the following document which pertain to those who may be mentally or morally defective and/or felons. One deals with the definition of able-bodied persons, the militia, and the other, disablement of rights to a class of person by statute. The rest of the document is an interesting read, though there are no cites except: REFERENCE: Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man be Armed, available from The Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603, 510/568-6047. I think this is the guy who runs the site: http://www.jonroland.org/
Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.
(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.
(9) It is unconstitutional to "disable" any rights by statute except one set: the rights of majority. The disabilities of minority do not need to be established by a court trial or hearing. However, they can be removed sooner than they would be removed by constitution or statute, by reaching a certain age. This means it is unconstitutional to disable the right to keep and bear arms to a class of persons by statute, including those, such as felons, who have been the subject of due process on another issue, except through a proceeding in which the court is explicitly petitioned to disable them, the subject has an opportunity to argue to the contrary, the petitioner has the burden of proof that the subject if armed would be a threat to himself or others, and the court grants that petition. Merely being convicted of a crime, or declared mentally incompetent, is not sufficient if the language of the judgement does not also explicitly disable the right to keep and bear arms, or set restrictions on such right.
I think it's something that should be left to a court to decide on a case by case, individual basis (see below).
There are two points in the following document which pertain to those who may be mentally or morally defective and/or felons. One deals with the definition of able-bodied persons, the militia, and the other, disablement of rights to a class of person by statute. The rest of the document is an interesting read, though there are no cites except: REFERENCE: Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man be Armed, available from The Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603, 510/568-6047. I think this is the guy who runs the site: http://www.jonroland.org/
Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.
(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.
(9) It is unconstitutional to "disable" any rights by statute except one set: the rights of majority. The disabilities of minority do not need to be established by a court trial or hearing. However, they can be removed sooner than they would be removed by constitution or statute, by reaching a certain age. This means it is unconstitutional to disable the right to keep and bear arms to a class of persons by statute, including those, such as felons, who have been the subject of due process on another issue, except through a proceeding in which the court is explicitly petitioned to disable them, the subject has an opportunity to argue to the contrary, the petitioner has the burden of proof that the subject if armed would be a threat to himself or others, and the court grants that petition. Merely being convicted of a crime, or declared mentally incompetent, is not sufficient if the language of the judgement does not also explicitly disable the right to keep and bear arms, or set restrictions on such right.
Hunterdave
Regular Member
imported post
Eric's back after being banned four times today!! And "homo sapiens" that's funny,but
expected considering the source.
As to the question, if a felon has paid his debt and released, all rights should be
restored. If a criminal after being released continues criminal activity, the
restriction on his RKBA is useless, by definition he does not follow the law.
To deny the RKBA to all ex-criminals, only hurts those that want to straighten
out their lives. Very similar,if not exactly the same with all gun control laws,
they only hurt lacs.
Eric's back after being banned four times today!! And "homo sapiens" that's funny,but
expected considering the source.
As to the question, if a felon has paid his debt and released, all rights should be
restored. If a criminal after being released continues criminal activity, the
restriction on his RKBA is useless, by definition he does not follow the law.
To deny the RKBA to all ex-criminals, only hurts those that want to straighten
out their lives. Very similar,if not exactly the same with all gun control laws,
they only hurt lacs.
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
imported post
From FORM 4473
Have you been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Important Notice 6, Exception 1.)
6. The transferee of a firearm should be familiar with 18 U.S.C. § 922.
Generally, § 922prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in or affecting interstatecommerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted of a misdemeanor or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. commerce of a firearm by one who is under indictment or information for a felony, crime of domestic violence; has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (this does not include 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, or receipt in or affecting interstate nonimmigrant alien; or is subject to certain restraining orders. Furthermore, section renounced his or her U.S. citizenship; is an alien illegally in the United States or a has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; has adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution; stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance; has been from justice; is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less); is a fugitive
EXCEPTION 1: A person who has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned the person for more than one year, or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, is not prohibited from purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm if:
[align=left](1) under the law where the conviction occurred, the person has been pardoned, the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has had civil rights (the right to vote, sit on a jury, and hold public office) restored AND
[/align][align=left](2) the person is not prohibited by the law where the conviction occurred from receiving or possessing firearms. Persons subject to this exception should answer “no” to 12c or 12i, as applicable. A person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence also is not covered by the prohibition unless:
[/align][align=left](1) the person was represented by a lawyer or gave up the right to a lawyer; and
[/align][align=left](2) if the person was entitled to a jury, was tried by a jury or gave up the right to a jury trial. Persons subject to this exception should answer “no” to 12i.
[/align]
From FORM 4473
Have you been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Important Notice 6, Exception 1.)
6. The transferee of a firearm should be familiar with 18 U.S.C. § 922.
Generally, § 922prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in or affecting interstatecommerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted of a misdemeanor or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. commerce of a firearm by one who is under indictment or information for a felony, crime of domestic violence; has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (this does not include 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, or receipt in or affecting interstate nonimmigrant alien; or is subject to certain restraining orders. Furthermore, section renounced his or her U.S. citizenship; is an alien illegally in the United States or a has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; has adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution; stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance; has been from justice; is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less); is a fugitive
EXCEPTION 1: A person who has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned the person for more than one year, or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, is not prohibited from purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm if:
[align=left](1) under the law where the conviction occurred, the person has been pardoned, the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has had civil rights (the right to vote, sit on a jury, and hold public office) restored AND
[/align][align=left](2) the person is not prohibited by the law where the conviction occurred from receiving or possessing firearms. Persons subject to this exception should answer “no” to 12c or 12i, as applicable. A person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence also is not covered by the prohibition unless:
[/align][align=left](1) the person was represented by a lawyer or gave up the right to a lawyer; and
[/align][align=left](2) if the person was entitled to a jury, was tried by a jury or gave up the right to a jury trial. Persons subject to this exception should answer “no” to 12i.
[/align]