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 ...
The problem is that the government can make pretty much anything it wants a felony.
Traditionally felonies consisted of basically burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping.
Now there are so many it is insane.
I think for there to be a prohibition on a fundamental constitutional right the law should have to pass a Strict Scrutiny analysis.
At a minimum they need to say that “felony” is too broad, and the prohibition must be narrowly tailored such that- for instance a person convicted of Felony graffiti (criminal mischief over $1,500 in TX) doesn’t lose his 2nd Amendment rights.
I think the government must be able to prove a substantial nexus between the crime convicted of and how it relates to gun ownership.
If they are given the rubber stamp to prohibit gun ownership based on a felony conviction regardless of the crime, then anti gun states can basically make most people ineligible to own a firearm for life.
All they have to do is make speeding and other minor things a felony.
Then selectively enforce the law so as to rid the state of eligible lawful gun owners.
There has to be a harder look at what constitutes a felony, and how the crime even relates to gun ownership.
Personally I believe that if a person is too dangerous to own a gun then he’s too dangerous to be out of prison.
I’m fine with banning gun ownership in prison.
That much we can agree on.
So to follow your logic, you believe that empowering a convicted rapist with full rights today, will protect you tomorrow from a tyrannical majority, who will criminalize your religious faith, but respect a previous law that allows such criminals to be armed?
Sorry, but that is not quality head work.
And sorry, but if "shall not" applies to everyone all the time, no matter their felonious actions, then you are going to have to allow inmates to carry guns in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution or common sense that limits punishment to incarceration.
Disassembling your straw-man there is no Constitutional right to rape...
You want an exception to the 2nd? Amend it.
Also see Tennessee v. Gardner where the SCOTUS spends a great deal of time explaining how felonies (at our nation’s founding) are not the same as felonies in the modern era.
That’s no small matter to contend with. Felonies used to ALL be very serious. Now there are some ticky tack charges that would blow your mind if you knew it constituted a felony.
For instance, if a 17 year old in high school writes with a Sharpe on a bathroom door, that can be a felony because it’s vandalism of school property.
From my vantage point as a lawyer, the key here is to make the government establish the nexus between the crime and the right sought to be denied.
To me that’s a matter of simple due process.
See my post at 121 and 124. I think you are stating some good examples of my legal position. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The "F" in "BATFE" is only there because of the mistaken notion that one can deprive dangerous criminals of guns.
Without this nonsensical idea, we wouldn't have mandatory serial numbers on guns, FFLs, gun registration, "Not Unsafe" handgun rosters, ten-day waiting periods, DROS transfer fees, and hundreds of pages of other infringements.
The presumption that an otherwise free person no longer has an unalienable right to defend himself, his family, or his community is FALSE. A free man is always justified in defending himself from unjustified force and denying him the tools to do so is an unjustifiable infringement of that right.
The War on Some Drugs and the War on Some Guns will both result in the loss of our liberty. First it was just the felons who were to be deprived of their guns. Then it was some misdemeanants. Now Kalifornia has a law allowing family members to initiate confiscation on just their say-so that a person is incompetent to own guns. You should not wish to associate with those who support these outrages.
For the first 193 years of this country, felons could legally own firearms. It wasn’t until the Gun Control Act of 1968 that it became illegal. BTW, the 1968 GCA was translated directly from a Nazi law.
Wish we had an "ignore" feature, and that the system would show how many "ignores" a user had... LOL! :)
I think I see your problem right there.
What you are saying is nonsense.
Those who supported the American Revolution consisted of about a third of the people in the colonies at the time. Another third was against the Revolution and the final third remained as neutral as possible under the circumstances.
And yet our Founders felt fully justified in overthrowing the existing government and instituting a new one.
You are perhaps among those who believe that if a super-majority supported "repeal" of the Second Amendment then there would no longer be a right to keep and bear arms.
In fact, there will always be a right to keep and bear arms. Repealing the Second Amendment would simply eliminate the explicit prohibition against infringement of the right by government. The same holds true of all our other unalienable rights.
Slavery was not eliminated by the Thirteenth Amendment alone. It required the loss of half a million lives to end the debate and to restore liberty to millions held in servitude.
In summary, there is much that we do to restrict the people from being able to run their government based on presumptions that they will be tyrants. Bearing arms is one such mechanism for restricting tyranny by majority.
My view is: "So, Mr. Prosecutor - do you wanna play "felony poker" with your penny-ante felony charge? Are you feeling lucky, punk?"
I think you have it exactly right about SampleMan, WT. He's one of the "government grants you your Rights - not their Creator" people.
SampleMan - you should look over the Declaration of Independence to refresh your memory on where our Natural Rights come from.
So when you lose an argument you post to each other about me like a group of teenage girls.
You should look of this thread and try to figure out where that non sequitor comment came from.
If you actually post anything concerning what I’ve said, I’ll answer.
Making shit up and subscribing to me isn’t going to illicit much from me but disdain.
They aren't free. They are being punished and are less than totally free. They made a choice and they have lost rights through due process. Don't like criminals being punished? Cry me a river.
How did I lose an argument to someone who doesn't understand the Declaration of Independence? **snicker**
I believe the old feller is trying to gum us to death. ‘Ware the dentures!
There are very few restrictions in the Constitution concerning crime and punishment. If the people cannot decide via their legislators what should be illegal and how it should be punished, within the confines of those aforementioned Constitutional restrictions, then who exactly should be empowered to do so? Laws don't write themselves.
The absurdity of the argument you are making is that we can, via due process, Constitutionally deprive a man of his livelihood, all of his belongings, his freedom to come and go, the company of his family, even his life, but somehow his right to be armed is the sole thing that he cannot be deprived of. That is as illogical as it gets.
The loss of freedom and self-autonomy is what punishment is. There are many arguments to be made for changing current laws and associated punishments, but that is an entirely different matter than stating that the people cannot be allowed to deprive felons of freedom.
Cite the part of the Declaration that gives a criminal the right to be armed after convicted.
I’ll wait.
Then give them the death penalty, or keep them locked up forever.
My point is, after committing a severe crime, and serving the punishment, that should be the end of it. If what they’ve done is so bad that they can’t have rights after serving their sentence, then they shouldn’t be allowed to go free.
I think that if they CAN go free, then their rights should be fully restored as they were before they committed the crime.
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.