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 ...
LOL
So felons in jail need to have access to firearms too, because hey, it says right there, "Shall not be infringed."
Beware, some people think that the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution are infringable for felons. They even think they should have their right of movement restricted, sometimes even their life taken away. I'm not sure how defense lawyers have missed the whole Constitutional rights issue in allowing felons to have their rights so horribly infringed.
Well, for at least some people. But, I digress...
You're right but… the whole law is invalid because it is wholly prohibited if any of it is Ex Post Facto.
You seem to go to a lot of trouble to try to justify the creation of second-class citizens; why?
Says the guy ignoring 200+ years of law, and sticking up for criminals and gangbangers. You're too dub to notice it, but you're in bed with the ACLU on this one. Big spoon or little spoon?
Why not simply strip the Second Amendment right and other rights from all who get less than $100,000 per year in income? That’s where the fight over constitutional rights is going anyway.
Bingo.
Federal legislature is still the people's choice. Lot's of issues brought up, but none of them relevant to this thread.
Ah, so the USSE is the sole arbiter of what the Constitution says? I'm so relieved.
Another side issue, which is a good and valid discussion, but still not directly relevant to this thread.
[concerning punishment = loss of freedom] Not always — Corporal Punishment.
If being physically punished by the state isn't a violation of my freedom, then we are all in constant peril. I have a right as a free citizen NOT to be whipped by the state. As a non-free citizen, not so much.
Only in your mind.
Great, then I misunderstood and you agree that partial restrictions on freedom are totally allowable forms of punishment. I think that makes it checkmate, game Sampleman.
Because the embracing of the continual injustice is so interesting, especially your rationalization.
Punishing felons is an injustice in your eyes? Care to rephrase, or are you good with that? You might not like the punishment that is being given out, but its quite Constitutional to punish felons with the loss of their freedom, all, most, or some. The duration is up to the people.
That is not how laws generally work. Portions of laws have often been found unconstitutional without the entire law being nullified.
You seem to go to a lot of trouble to try to justify the creation of second-class citizens; why?
Because a man that rapes a mother in front of her children, before burning them all to death, is not a first-class citizen, and I want to do everything in my earthly power to ensure that he is never treated as one. Lesser crimes get lesser punishment, but many crimes make the perp worthy of losing their rights as a first-class citizen.
If you can't stomach second-class citizen status, then you are going to have to close all jails and prisons, because those people incarcerated in them are not being provided the status of first-class citizen.
>> Because the embracing of the continual injustice is so interesting, especially your rationalization.
>
> Punishing felons is an injustice in your eyes? Care to rephrase, or are you good with that?
To continue punishment after the sentence is served is immoral and unjust. — In this particular instance, what you claim as “part of the sentence” is not, but is instead additional punishment added on by the legislature, which you have agreed is violative of the Constitution.
> You might not like the punishment that is being given out, but its quite Constitutional to punish felons with the loss of their freedom, all, most, or some. The duration is up to the people.
Not if the duration set in place impacts those already convicted: for then you are altering their sentence — or are you going to argue for a Bill of Attainder next?
Part of the sentence of any felon includes a lifetime restriction on firearms. That is the sentence, as codified in the law. Its not after their sentence, it is the punishment so laid out in the law for a felony offense. You don't have to like it, but its the law of the land and at least since 1968 not ex post facto.
Not if the duration set in place impacts those already convicted: for then you are altering their sentence — or are you going to argue for a Bill of Attainder next?
Already addressed pre-1968, next.
Actually there is a slight difference.
convicted politician vs.
not yet convicted politician...
Of course there are exceptions to this.
.
Sentences should be sufficiently long such that, once a felon has served his time, that his full rights are restored.
If a felon is released early (good behavior, parole, etc) then restoration of rights should coincide with the original sentence or special court considerations.
If we are uncomfortable with restoring an individuals rights after serving their prison term, then perhaps they need longer sentences.
In its simplest terms.
Gun control laws control the law abiding. A felon who commits a crime with a gun obviously didn’t care about the law. For that matter a former felon who gets a gun for self defense and kills in clear self defense would get a not guilty vote from me.
Why not? If you committed a crime and paid your debt to society what is the problem? If you are too dangerous to own a firearm then you are too dangerous to be walking around society at large. One can argue that we let people out of prison who should never see the light of day again. I personally think all murders should be the death penalty or at a minimum life without parole.
Nothing in the Constitution gives government the right to permanently remove the God given rights of a person because he is a convicted felon, except maybe for penalty of death for murder, treason, etc.
I think a felon has as much right to self-defense as I do, and thus should be allowed to own guns once he is out of prison. Thus selling the guns to your family would be fine with me.
If you're convicted of a felony, you can forfeit any right -- including the three most basic rights: life, liberty and property. If you can't forfeit the right to own a firearm, then that would literally be the only right you could not forfeit.
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.