Posted on 10/20/2014 12:55:55 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
For those who do not think the government can remove someones rights to sell or transfer his ownership to someone else. Now obviously the weapon used in a crime is forfeit but all his other guns too??
Again, why?
people with high value gun collections
need to think about what happens if...
they die.
bad divorce.
they are arrested.
I would not read anything more
into this case.
A plain reading of the 2nd does not allow the gov to strip any person’s right to keep and bare arms. Further, its an unalienable right, removing the Constitutional protection cannot extinguish the per-existing right.
You already admitted that the very law
you cite is Ex Post Facto in nature in Post 53— I don't see how it would not constitute an ex post facto violation for those pre-1968 convictions.
Let's try using a simple chain of reasoning:
Laws are not found to be unconstitutional in their entirety. But rather in their specificity.
That is the second time I've had to point that out to you. Next.
You are correct. However the Fifth Amendment does give the government that right -- you can be deprived of life, liberty and/or property given due process of the law (which means conviction in a court of a serious crime). Those are all those most basic rights and yet any or all can be forfeited when you commit a crime.
So because the VERY PORTION that makes it Ex Post Facto [the imposition upon the sentence] suddenly becomes legitimate when applied to different people?
Tell me more about this situational, conditional, selective legitimacy within the law.
And GCA `68 wasn't proper due process because it was Ex Post Facto, which is prohibited in the Constitution to Federal and State governments.
(It added to the punishments incurred by those who had already served, or were serving, their sentences.)
Felons ALREADY have the right to VOTE, so they SHOULD have the right to own, carry, and shoot guns.
no one can take the right to protect oneself away.
shall not be infringed means just that.
a lot of so called constitutionalists think it is ok to deny someone’s inalienable rights. they cannot.
shall not be infringed says just that. if they do their time, they have the right to carry.
what they do with that right is subject to laws that should be stricter to not allow them out in the first place.
flame away. but you are wrong.
Depends on the state. That's certainly not universal.
I though Eric withHolder rules that felons everywhere could vote for President, as long as it was for the Democratic candidate?
Holder wants the Court to rule that way, but no such right exists or should exists. What's funny is seeing a whole bunch of self-professed conservatives taking up Holder's mantle of felon's rights, just because this particular issue concerns guns. This is a legal nose under the camel's tent -- once felons have a right to guns then they can use this as precedent to win "rights" to everything else. However the Constitution is clear -- you can lose ALL rights if you're convicted of a crime. That's stated pretty plainly in the 5th Amendment.
Voting rights are restored pretty easily.
State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue.Felon Voting Rights - National Conference of State Legislatures
- In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence.
- In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored.
- In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.
OTOH, the right to keep and bear arms is denied by both federal and state statutes. Restoration of the RKBA is possible, but difficult.
Either you think lifetime restrictions on freedom are unconstitutional or you are just unhappy with this particular restriction.
If it is the latter, I stand duly notified, disagree with you, and we'll have to leave it at that. If it is the former, then there is a concrete logic train to follow.
Is there anything in the Constitution that prohibits the people, via their legislatures (both state and national), from punishing criminals and determining what that punishment should be? There is a restriction on cruel and unusual. I don't think this applies, if you do, pursue that.
You obviously have an issue with pre-’68 ex post facto application. Sounds reasonable, but that does not invalidate post-’68 application of the law. Cases have never been decided like that, so your assertion that this particular one should be has no basis that I'm willing to entertain.
People don't like to be punished. If they could choose not be punished they would, but they can't. Why? Because they are not first-class citizens once they are found guilty. The idea of differently empowered citizens may offend your sensibilities, but there are only two alternatives. That is to stop punishing criminals or completely strip them of their citizenship. I'll entertain suggestions on the latter.
Minor crimes should not carry substantial punishments. Life long loss of 2A rights is substantial punishment in my opinion. Want to change the application of that punishment to certain crimes? I'm listening. But I will not entertain the notion that no one can be so punished, so as to protect less heinous criminals from ever being over punished. The answer is to give suitable punishment to everyone.
I'm A-OK with life-time sentences for certain crimes that may or may not involve lesser restrictions with the passage of time. I cherish the 2A, as I do the freedom to come and go as I please, vote, and attend the religious institution of my choice. The fact that I cherish them means I take seriously the notion of stripping others of them. That doesn't mean I hesitate to do so when its required.
So then the government can instead charge us with petty crimes, brand us a felon. Bye bye rights. I’m glad you agree with that.
Only the heinous of criminals should be stripped of their rights. Once they have been stripped of their rights they really have no standing as an American citizen, and certainly shouldn’t be put up for years and years by the American tax payer.
I’m a firm believer that the prison system is a Ponzi scheme. You go to prison for a crime, a mistake, you knew better. You serve your time, and you cooperate and play by the rules. You get out, all your rights are stripped, you can’t get a job because you are an ex-con, even though you served your sentence. So you get desperate and turn back to drugs, and crime, and whatever else got you in trouble. BLAM YOU ARE BACK IN PRISON. Now, not ALL convicts are like this, some commit serious crimes when they are young, and keep doing it regardless of what happens to them. However there are felons that want nothing to do with Prison, people with drug charges who are clean, people with manslaughter convictions, accidental deaths, and other mistakes that every day eat at their minds. So these felons are remorseful, and want to live happy productive lives in society. Once they are released everywhere they turn they hit a brick wall, because the system is designed to put everyone back into the prison system.
It is a vicious cycle. Violent criminals, killers, rapists, etc. should certainly not be allowed to own weapons. However other felons should be allowed their rights. People that actually have a chance at turning their life around should not be stripped of their rights. How is that just?
Got a cite for that? I think D. Kopel did some research into the timing of felons being stripped of the RKBA, and your contention would be of interest in that context.
I have always felt that once a criminal has completed their punishment for a judicially sentenced crime, rights should be restored.
To deny someone for life the right to bear arms not because a judge has sentenced that person to a lifetime ban, but because guns are covered under the commerce clause, and as such congress can regulate them via administrative policy, is a disgrace to anyone who speaks highly of individual rights IMO.
And i do not understand why anyone is fine with denying someone who has paid their dues for a crime the right to vote.
I have a feeling that if the prevailing thought was that felons tended to vote for the R candidate, both parties would be doing a 180 with respects to the question of felons voting rights.
That puts the Constitution in conflict to read it that way — shall not infringe is a bright line rule.
In this case that would be the application of the law to felons who committed crimes before the law was passed.
If the state increased the sentence for rape from 20 to 30 years and then added 10 years to all existing inmates, the application, not the law would be found to be ex post facto. Only if the law were so tightly worded that it could not otherwise be applied would the entire law be tossed, i.e. “All existing felons will have 10 years added to their sentence.” And that was the entire law.
In any event, you are attempting a straw man here, in the sense that you want to affirm the general unconstitutionality of such restrictions, but then argue a narrow element of it. Even if the whole law was tossed out, it could be repassed and applied from today forward. In which case, you would find that unacceptable. If that is your argument, then try to confine yourself to that argument. The ex post facto element has been covered. I've given you an honest assessment, agreeing in part, and rejecting the rest based on case law. If you don't like the case law, that is a separate issue, and I don't care to debate the English common law system with you.
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.