Posted on 05/11/2016 3:47:00 AM PDT by marktwain
If they've served their time, as mandated by the courts, along with any probation/parole they get. Once that is complete, they should have all rights restored. Now, let's talk about why these violent offenders are released time and time again. If they can't be trusted with a firearm once released, why then, are they being released? That is the real issue.
Absolutely. Please demonstrate or explain how barring them legally from having weapons keeps them from having weapons. Using those weapons to commit crimes is already illegal and punishable by severe sentences. How does barring possession affect anything at all other than to negate the RKBA? Should felons be forever denied a driver’s license because they might use a car in the commission of a crime? Should they be denied food because it strengthens them and makes it easier for them to commit crimes? The crimes are already constitutionally illegal and punishable! Denying felons the right to possess firearms is ultimately denying you and me the right to possess firearms. If you allow one exception to the RKBA that is NOT in the Constitution then you allow all exceptions ultimately. If you think it is necessary to make it illegal for felons to possess firearms then the Constitution provides the means to do that constitutionally. It is called the Amendment process. If you think well that is too slow or it is impractical so we just have to amend the Constitution on the fly as some judge sees fit then that argument extends to the entire Constitution and the Constitution to you is actually meaningless or means whatever you think it ought to mean which is is the same thing.
You can take that up with the US Supreme Court, which ruled it was constitutional to remove their right to vote, and their second amendment rights.
How has making it illegal for felons to be armed affected the violence in Chicago? How would actual observance of the Constitution increase the carnage?
Good luck with that.
“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.
I agree. But there is also something to be said for “Don’t let them loose on society if they really can’t be trusted to vote or own a gun.”
Freegards
The same Supreme Court that stated Dred Scott was proper and that abortion is a right, or that two people of the same sex can be married?
According to the Constitution, the only ones who can be interpreted as losing their RKBA are those doing constitutional involuntary servitude, i.e. prisoners. If you believe your opinion or the opinion of a judge is superior to the COnstitution then you are not a conservative or a believer in the paramountcy of the Constitution. How does legally but Unconstitutionally barring a felon from possessing a firearm prevent that felon from shooting someone?
How much do the laws against possession affect actual possession? One effect, I suppose is the lack of the use of holsters by those barred in the ordinances. Does than make you more safe? or does it merely satisfy your desire for retribution? or your feeling that people you disapprove of should not have any protections in the Constitution?
I am not defending the felon’s use of the gun. If he used it to commit a crime then the crime is punishable and should be punished. I am defending the Constitution which most Free Republic posters disdain to do. Most support only those portions of the Constitution that are believed to protect their particular beliefs, not those parts that protect people of whom they disapprove. Unfortunately those parts are the same parts. Negating the RKBA for people you don’t like is no different from negating the right to free speech for people who say things you don’t like. Do you support altering the Constitution to comport with your own preferences without recourse to the Amendment process? How is denying the RKBA to anyone not performing involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment not contradicting the 2nd Amendment?
Question: Felons can have long guns but not handguns, or, not at all?
It depends on the state. Some states allow for possession of a hunting gun, I believe, so there may well be states that differentiate on what guns a felon is allowed to have.
The Constitution does not exclude freed felons or even the insane from second amendment rights.
I believe a person who has paid their debt to society has the right to vote and be armed....but I also believe most of these violent predators should have been executed. Since they are not, I don’t want them armed or voting.
My own view is that once you are out on the streets, you are entitled to defend yourself, that is, provided you have completed your sentence. That is to say, if you are out on parole, be careful and avoid dangerous situations.
Now, I won't try to defend this position. There are other reasonable positions including why, or why not, ex-cons should be able to carry a weapon.
This is mine.
Might want to ask the US Supreme Court about that.
According to the law and the US Supreme Court who has ruled on this matter, those who commit FELONIES lose certain rights as a result. Voting is one right, possession of a firearm is another.
Don't want to lose your rights? Don't commit felonies. It's really that simple.
AS I said, there are other reasonable ways of looking at it besides mine.
I still think that once you have completed your sentence, you should be free of all restrictions, including registration of any sort.
If a person is dangerous to society, make the penalty such that she has no opportunity to further harm it.
Clockwork Orange.
Are released felons considered part of the militia?
That would be the only real justification for the exclusion, if felons are not part of the body of citizens called upon for national defense, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.