Posted on 08/09/2006 6:37:46 PM PDT by neverdem
A few issues I have with your post:
1) Those that end up being gang members, etc. do not go to private schools and they don't join the Boy Scouts. This needs to be addressed at all levels, public schools included. The classes need to be better than the idiot that is "trained" to handle a firearm and then shoots themselves with said firearm.
2) We have to combat the impact Hollywood has on the gun culture (ie. holding the gun on it's side, etc.) and the lack of in home training (mainly due to being a single mother household).
3) Training (no matter the level/quality) does not make a person less of an idiot, just look at the officers and fed agents that shoot themselves, hotel walls, etc. Unfortunately there is no way to weed them out except through self elimination.
4) CCW licensing has not kept criminals from carrying, just like banning felons from possessing firearms has not stop them from doing so.
Can the Second Amendment reasonably be construed as applying to slaves?
If a state has the authority to make someone a slave as punishment for committing a particular crime, that would suggest the authority to put whatever restrictions on the person's actions it sees fit.
If a state wished to impose a law requiring that, as punishment for committing a particular crime a person shall be (unless or until pardoned) a slave of the state who shall ,after serving a certain term of years in prison, generally be allowed to move around freely but will have certain restrictions placed on his actions, including a prohibition on weapons ownership, I would see no constitutional problem with that.
That is, however, a far cry from the federal government's GCA'68 which forbids firearm ownership for people convicted in state courts for crimes where they could receive over a year sentence, regardless of the actual sentence given.
I don't think Brady et al. would want to use this rationale to justify the prohibition of firearms to convicted felons, since it would equate people who are forbidden from owning firearms with slaves. While that may be the agenda, I don't think it's one Brady et al. would admit to.
If they are imposed only during the time they are a "slave", then yes that would apply. But Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. would not allow them to apply after being released from "slavery". I also think that GCA and NFA are both unconstitutional, but because of the infringement not because of who or how it applies.
If a legislature chose to pass laws to make people convicted of certain crimes be lifetime slaves of the state even after they are paroled, it would be within its authority to do so. Congress, however, has no authority to mandate such punishment for state crimes.
As I said before, though, I find it interesting that HCI et al. don't mention the only way in which a prohibition against felons bearing arms might be constitutional. Do you agree that HCI et al. have a real agenda they don't want people to know about?
No, the "slavery" is while they are in prison/probation/parole. When they are released from said, they are no longer "slaves".
If a state (via the legislature) wanted to declare that a person convicted of a particular crime would be a slave for 100 years or his natural lifespan, but his only obligations as a slave were to (1) appear before a parole officer once every five years, and (2) not possess weapons, why would it not be within its authority to do so? Basically a very "loose" parole.
At the fitness club I belong to, one of the trainers was just walking into the locker room when he heard someone breaking into a locker. He went out to the main desk and had them call the police while he then followed the perp out thru the hotel lobby into the parking lot.
The guy then walked around with the stolen keys to a car pushing the remote button trying to locate the car. Just as he located it, the cops arrived and arrested him. Turns out he was just paroled 5 days earlier from prison for prior auto thefts...........
Since there ain't no stopping or rehabing repeat offenders, at least give me the means to protect myself.......
Yes, that is fine because they would still be considered "slaves". However the current system says felons are not allowed to possess, even if they completed their parole/probation/etc (they are no longer "slaves").
I agree that as presently implemented, the statutes regarding felon weapon possession are unconstitutional. My point was that it would be possible to write statutes with much the same effect in a constitutional fashion, but it would require recognizing that disarmament is slavery.
I think any gun control laws are unconstitutional. Not just the liberal ones.
I agree.
"can" involves a number of variables . . . sadly.
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.