Posted on 10/20/2014 12:55:55 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Former border patrol agent, convicted on drug charges, appeals to high justices after lower courts bar him from selling weapons.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the federal prohibition on firearms for felons terminates all ownership rights.
The US Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether a Florida man convicted on drug charges and forced to give up his firearms under federal law could sell the guns or transfer ownership to his wife or a friend.
The court agreed to hear an appeal filed by Tony Henderson, a former US border patrol agent who was convicted of distributing marijuana and other drug offenses in 2007 and sentenced to six months in prison.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
And the reason that rules concerning gun ownership are so murky is that they are not sentenced actions. They are administrative policy. A court cannot restore what it has not taken away. Background checks are done by an administrative branch of the government. The courts have nothing to do with denying those who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence the right to own a firearm. It is due to the power of the commerce clause, which allows congress to control the rules concerning background checks and the possession of firearms.
If the court has ruled ownership of firearms an individual right, it should not allow the congress to prevent former criminals the ability to exercise it based on past crimes.
And if someone is to dangerous to own a weapon, why are they on the street?
I would forsee practical difficulties if that was not the case.
Maybe a more simple approach is to re-define exactly what a “felony” is.
Recently, a young lady crossed into the Demokratic People’s Socialist Utopia of Neu Jersey, carrying a PA-licensed handgun to protect herself and her child. She had PA carry license. She was pulled over for a traffic violation, and in good faith - trying to be the Good Citizen - volunteered to the badge that she had a firearm with her - thinking that her PA license would be honored - you know, “full faith and credit clause” and all that - and he promptly arrested her.
Jersey, being the model Progressive totalitarian state that it is, saw fit to charge her with felony possession of a handgun - you know, that “Constitutional right” that we are supposed to be able to exercise.
That’s a felony - fully on par (in the eyes of the “Justice” system) with this BP agent selling dope and whatever else.
To these socialist assh*les, exercising a Constitutional right without their permission is a felony.
So - maybe we need to redine what a felony really is and THEN go from there.
Murder, arson, rape, assault - absolutely.
But the word is being used to describe whatever the leftist pr*cks want it to mean.
If the vast majority of people decide to lynch you, you are going to be lynched. Again you present a straw man. The system allows the people to determine what is a crime and what a suitable punishment is. If you are terrified that petty crimes will be given draconian sentences, I suggest you first worry about the death penalty.
You are aware of how a constitutional, democratic republic functions right? We don't restrict the people from being able to run their government based on presumptions that they will be tyrants. Is it possible? Sure, that is why we allow free people to debate and vote. But at the end of the day, if 60% of the people want to make petty theft punishable by death, its going to happen, because they will elect the legislature, POTUS, and SCOTUS. The 40% can then choose to fight.
I sure wish you would have skipped the hysterics and started with the rest of your post.
In short, I think the vast majority of felons that commit violent crimes are not salvageable and that they should never again be allowed to walk as free citizens among honorable citizens. I'm ok with penal farms etc. for those people, where they are live separate lives from the rest.
As for less heinous crimes, put them in separate prisons or just make them work it off. I would not put a man in prison for vandalizing cars, I would give him a sentence as an indentured servant and force him to pay for the damage, court costs, and his room/board.
Not really, because there are other bright lines that protect life, liberty and property. The right to keep and bear arms is both a liberty and a right to property. Nobody at the time felt that felons had a right to anything - by committing a felony, and being fairly convicted (much of the bill of rights concerns the fairness of the judicial process) criminals forfeit any or potentially all of their rights.
Your only plausible argument is an 8th amendment one -- that taking away gun rights is "cruel and unusual." But there you're getting into squishy progressive territory.
The law, being a single text, is not Ex Post Facto only for one group and then magically not Ex Post Facto for another — that you assert such shows that you believe precedent to be of superior authority to the Constitution. — At the very instant of its passage, in 1968, there were absolutely ZERO people for whom it would have NOT been Ex Post Facto, if the Constitution bars the passage of Ex Post Facto law, then how can a law which is Ex Post Facto at its inception suddenly gain legitimacy?
This is exactly what the Federal government has done since the 1968 Gun Control Act. Subsequent Gun Control Acts have further expanded the definition of a prohibited person.
More recently, since around 2009 or 2010, the Holder Dept. of JustUS began an unpublicized program to data mine local and state records. This was not just for felonies, but for misdemeanors on down to traffic tickets and minor civil infractions, fines, etc. They were looking for any thing at all that could be brought to question, such as simple errors or gaps in data resulting from transfer of hard records to computers, etc. They were checking records back 40 years or more. Anything they could use to deny a firearms purchase. If you check the internet you can find many examples of law abiding persons purchasing firearms for many years, some in their 70s, recently denied a gun purchase for bullshit reasons.
Of course the JustUS Dept. has better access than you to research and check the veracity/accuracy of any past records. But that is not the point of the program. They want to summarily deny as many firearms purchases as possible and send out notices to those individuals declaring them a prohibited person. I am sure you can appreciate the shock value of a denial and a threatening followup letter from the JustUS Dept. And of course, the burden of proof then falls upon the individual to clear his name.
The process to clear your name is quite lengthy and the JustUS Department can pretty much take their time. It appears their only burden is that they must respond to your original inquiry within 5 weeks. In that response they then notify you of the hoops you must jump through to provide proof and that it will be 6 or more months before they can review/evaluate your appeal.
Most people do not have the time or money to investigate or hire an attorney to clear their name or are too afraid to try to do it on their own. I have heard it is rare, but during this period of time you are subject to a surprise visit from the Feds if they chose to do so. Under the best circumstances it will take more than a year to clear your name so during that time they consider you a prohibited person.
How do I know this? It happened to me as a result of an error in the transfer of paper documents to computer files for a BS minor misdemeanor from more than 35 years ago. It was so insignificant and so long ago that I had forgotten about it. You can imagine my suprise as I had purchased many firearms over the years and never had a problem.
Even though the problem in the computerization of my records was easily identifiable and the court record was quite clear, it took me a year and a half and $2,000 in attorneys fees to clear my name. Just like the IRS they put the burden of proof on you.
Further, the JustUS Dept. seemed to drag their feet at every step, even arguing whether or not my attorney had the right to pursue on my behalf and discuss my records with them. My attorney was shocked by their lack of cooperativeness. I eventually had to put them on notice of my intent to sue.
Keep in mind that I have had a CCW since 2004 for which I had to undergo a very extensive background check in my state. Never had a problem. The entire experience with the JustUS Dept. was nothing more than harassment and denial of my rights.
It is my understanding that I am just one of many who have experienced this since 2010.
Actually my argumet is the specific vs the general and the superior position of the 2nd to the 5th. Notwithstanding what else has such a strong “shall not.” Its not a permissible or gray statement.
To follow the logic you are using is a slippery slope since felony is whatever the democrats want it to be now. You really want them to take away your right because you are a Christian? No “shall not” means shall not.
The mechanism is that a court first issues a nonsense opinion upholding the unconstitutional law. Then, with the passage of time, the law becomes long standing. And all long-standing prohibitions on the RKBA, whether they were constitutional to begin with is irrelevant, become constitutional.
That's SCOTUS-quality reasoning, see Scalia in Heller.
I am aware of how a constitutional republic works. However, we are no longer constitutional democratic republic. America has been changed into a country where the will of a federal judge trumps hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes. I realize my intro is pretty preposterous (at this point in time), however we are headed down the road that leads to that type of injustice. If Americans do not unite against our government regardless of beliefs and values our government will be our downfall. Which is the reason the government has purposefully divided us. No force on Earth can stop a *United* States of America. A *Divided* States of America however is eating itself alive.
We don’t elect anyone, there were districts in 2012 that went 100% democrat. There were districts that had counted more votes than registered voters in said districts. Stuffing ballot boxes after the booths close, modifying computer voting systems, and intimidating your opposition gets you in power. The only reason it isn’t a wide spread belief that America IS under Tyranny is because a good front is put up. America today is the ultimate most successful Potemkin village ever created.
Back on track however the government will eventually come for the guns. We aren’t soft enough yet, but give it maybe another decade, or two. Possibly a crushed revolution or coup, and people will be willingly handing over their weapons to the feds.
Because a point will come when all patriotism, and strength has been bred from us.
I am aware of how a constitutional republic works. However, we are no longer constitutional democratic republic. America has been changed into a country where the will of a federal judge trumps hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes. I realize my intro is pretty preposterous (at this point in time), however we are headed down the road that leads to that type of injustice. If Americans do not unite against our government regardless of beliefs and values our government will be our downfall. Which is the reason the government has purposefully divided us. No force on Earth can stop a *United* States of America. A *Divided* States of America however is eating itself alive.
We don’t elect anyone, there were districts in 2012 that went 100% democrat. There were districts that had counted more votes than registered voters in said districts. Stuffing ballot boxes after the booths close, modifying computer voting systems, and intimidating your opposition gets you in power. The only reason it isn’t a wide spread belief that America IS under Tyranny is because a good front is put up. America today is the ultimate most successful Potemkin village ever created.
Back on track however the government will eventually come for the guns. We aren’t soft enough yet, but give it maybe another decade, or two. Possibly a crushed revolution or coup, and people will be willingly handing over their weapons to the feds.
Because a point will come when all patriotism, and strength has been bred from us.
*sigh* — It's all true.
(And why I loathe the USSC.)
Applied to the wrong people, any new law becomes ex post facto. That is pretty much the sole definition of ex post facto. If it weren't, new laws could never be made.
Care to try that again?
That's idiotic; Ex Post Facto has a specific meaning:
ex post fac·toIt has nothing to do with the application of the law to particular people.
adjective & adverb
with retroactive effect or force.(Wikipedia)
An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.
There are many types of felonies, violent and non-violent. Of the non-violent variety, I would not strip gun rights for copyright enfringement or tax evasion.
Yep, and when applied (force) retroactively, it is found that the law is being applied in an ex post facto fashion. When not applied retroactively, it is not ex post facto.
Your little tantrums and name calling, aren't really helping your position. Especially, when you cut and paste definitions that underscore my point.
Felons after 1968 suffer no ex post facto consequence when the law is applied to them. Thus, for them, the law is not ex post facto. If any law, that is ANY law, passed after 1968, were applied to someone who violated that law after 1968, it would make the application of the law an ex post facto violation, not the law itself, just the application.
Again, only wording that specifically had words to the effect, "and this applies to people retroactively" would be found to be an ex post facto law. And even then, only if the entire law were found to rest on that wording would it be cast out entirely.
The fact that certain provisions of laws, and not laws in their entirety, are regularly ruled on isn't a matter of opinion. Why are you still arguing as if this isn't common practice?
It has nothing to do with the application of the law to particular people.
Other than the fact that specific application is the only possible definition of ex post facto, you are correct. So you are only 100% wrong, but on everything else I stand corrected.
Quite to the contrary, I think that far from insulating good citizens, it would only serve to speed the passage of more restrictive gun laws on everyone, as you are providing no other choice. Frankly, taking guns away from people who have feloniously used firearms strikes me as an actual common sense gun law.
You want to give the public an ultimatum that they must allow convicted rapists and thieves to be fully armed, or they must disarm everyone. Sorry, but I'm not about to draw myself into that death trap.
A man who has robbed a bank or raped a woman with a gun has lost his rights by his own choice, and deservedly so. I will not tie my destiny to his with the odd notion that if he is punished, I cannot be free.
If you’ve paid your debt to society you should be able to own a gun. I wonder how many convicted felons fought and died for this country?
After a felon has done their time, their debt to society should be considered ‘paid’, and all of their rights fully restored. If they are so dangerous that their rights can’t be restored, then they should remain incarcerated.
When a person commits a crime and serves their sentence, their lives shouldn’t be ruined afterwards.
There is no debt to society that can be paid. Felons are put away to restrict their acces to innocents. Sleeping in a cell for 5 years doesn't unrape a woman, or make things right. Its not time out, its punishment and exclusion.
When a person commits a crime and serves their sentence, their lives shouldn’t be ruined afterwards.
Really? I don't see any reason otherwise. But when you can start ensuring that their victims lives aren't forever ruined, and are somehow made whole, I'll give you a listen.
Don't want to have your life ruined? Don't choose to be a felonious piece of human crap. Strikes me as a very fair and equitable deal.
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.