Posted on 11/22/2009 10:06:10 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a Wisconsin man barred from owning firearms because of his criminal record, ruling the lifetime prohibition may violate Americans' Second Amendment rights and calling into question the future of a 13-year old gun control law.
In a 3-0 decision on Wednesday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a trial judge to take a second look at the evidence that a 1996 federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is constitutional in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that emphasized "the individual right to possess and carry weapons."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Bear in mind: Ships often mounted cannon, a crew-served weapon of the day, for defense at sea, and were AFAIK permitted to make port with them on deck. I understand the practice of firing a "salute" at the point of coming into port was to show the inhabitants thereof that you had cleared your weapon and meant no harm.
You have mentioned "original intent" more than once. I agree, and point out that the founders were educated men with a command of the language, who could have excepted crew-served weapons (including land- and sea-borne artillery) or any other thing whatever (in existence at the time-- small concealable stabbing knives, f'rinstance) had they wanted to...and they didn't.
I keep a Remington SPR 453 within quick reach in the bedroom loaded with 00 buckshot.
“...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
So I can obtain (and use if compelled) an ICBM since it is an “arm”?
I think that logic needs to be balanced against intent.
The “rights of man” would seem not to bear that up, as the responsibility to be harmless to innocents is as needful as right to self-defense and defense of a free state...
Tough issues to resolve, I know.
Molon Lbae
There is nothing in the constitution permitting the taking of any right as a punishment for any crime. The constitution considers all rights to be inalienable.
I was arrested in 1995 on a simple battery class 3 misdemeanor. I shoved a (drunk) woman out of my apartment that I was having a party in. She walked across the street and found a sympathetic cop. He came over with three cops and made a huge deal of it and arrested me for that charge and resisting arrest. Anyways. Never went to court. Probation and paid a fine. Well a few years later went to a gun store to buy a new pistol and three days later I was denied. FLorida Dept. of Law Enforcement had bumped it, because my ummm victim? was a female, to a domestic violence charge. I can go to my court records today and it still says charged with simple battery class 3 misdemeanor. And I still cannot buy a gun in Florida through a dealer.
Nightmare. Nightmare.
No gun law has ever protected anyone, nor reduced crime. - The sole purpose of gun laws is to disarm the victims of tyranny.
I am always disappointed when someone does that to me, and try to stop myself when tempted to do it to another.
In the meantime, when presented with such a "straw man", I carefully check my premises and answer as truthfully as I can.
Pursuant thereto:
I do not find the prohibition of ownership of a nuclear-tipped ICBM to be Constitutional. If you can build it, or buy it, keep it on your property and use it as much within the law as you would a pistol-- or a tank--, be my guest.
Thank you, and good night.
So much for thought-provoking and persuasive dialog....
I do respect your position, but I disagree in certain aspects. Persuade me otherwise, or agree to disagree, I am reasonable and tend to offer position statements based on long thought out understanding of the facts in context.
Best Regards and Molon Labe!!!
Go along with me on the uninfringeable right of the citizen to carry anything from a concealed derringer to a thigh-mounted Desert Eagle .50AE, leaving it as much to the citizen's discretion what to carry and how as it is whether or not to wear a tie to church, and we'll get along just fine.
Expand that to any small arm, from pencil up to and including directed energy weapons when available etc and we’ll be best buds!
I’ll avoid the the tie issue completely!
Works for me.
Wish you’d come along on crew-served, but OK.
This is a big deal. Until now, if you have been charged with misdemeanor domestic violence you are committing a felony by possessing a firearm of any sort.
HOW HAS The Lautenburg AMENDMENT lasted this long without being overturned by the surpreme court? Does it have to concern big money for them to act. This is double jepordy period. If not overturned I believe it will lead to the end of the bill of rights, our freedom and eventually our coutry. This law has frightened me more than any terrorist. Please speak out to all who will listen from the brother to the president.
Actually, there is a part of the Constitution which permits the taking of rights as a punishment for crimes, Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
*****************nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;*******************
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Nothing there is a taking of any right.
.
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.