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 ...
I’m as pro-gun as anybody, but if they give felons rights to guns, are we going to give felons all other rights as well? This seems like liberal activism masquerading as conservatism.
“I wonder how many police officers will view this”... The SCOTUS case that is...
The arguments on televisions, by the talking heads, pundits, etcetera, will probably follow this: If you can’t do the “time” then don’t do the crime.
Followed by: is all “time” created equal (should some felons end up with a loss of gun rights and others - not so much?
That will probably be followed by: if some should have their gun rights restored, then should some have their voting rights restored?
Actually, the law as written says the Feds get to confiscate your guns without recompense if you're convicted of a felony. This guy is trying to either transfer ownership to his wife or sell them to his friends.
Read post #3.
Undoubtedly, some conservatives will say that he should have his right restored, with some saying no. That will be followed by some conservatives saying that it depends upon the felony - they will argue that if it wasn’t a violent crime then his gun rights should be restored.
And that will probably be followed by others saying that if some felonies shouldn’t result in a loss of gun rights, then voting rights in those same cases shouldn’t be upended.
Regardless of where you stand on this, buckle up!
Shall not be infringed.
We should roll back all the gun restrictions to about 1900.
Any man too dangerous to own a gun is a man too dangerous to walk the street. If he isn’t dangerous enough to imprison for life or execute, then he isn’t dangerous enough to strip of his rights upon serving his time.
People who support reasonable gun laws are what I call “reasonably stupid”.
What about felon disenfranchisement? All states except Vermont strip voting rights from felons. What about pedophiles? Do they have a right to work in schools or day care centers if they're otherwise qualified, once they've served their sentence? Where do you draw the line?
The flip side is that anti-gun ownership folks can dumb down what is called a felony so jay walking or a DUI and you can no longer own a gun -
Which will then lead to the question “What is the definition for “dangerous” in regards to “too dangerous”?
Followed by: If he serves his time, should he get his voting rights back? You know that will be asked...
This is going to cause a major can of worms to be opened up (as one can see the arguments that will be given with the counter arguments that will result), which I why I already said “buckle up” in post #5.
In my opinion, a felon should lose their gun rights for the time period post conviction and prior to either exoneration, pardon or completion of the full term of the sentence (i.e. parole does not count as serving the full sentence). Once the felon has served their time, all rights should be restored.
YIPPEEEEEE !!!
You seem to be describing.... probation
Once you have done your time (paid your debt to society) and there is no further claim against you, your basic God-given rights are restored IN FULL. This isn’t leftist, this is LOGIC.
No, probation or parole is time out of prison but not fully restored to citizenship. Once the person has served their full sentence - i.e. the WHOLE time, parole or probation does not count, they have then paid their debt to society. Once that is paid, they should be restored their full rights.
Like how people who are convicted of misdemeanors but since they’re “Domestic Violence” cases lose their rights like a felon.
Domestic Violence is a serious concern, but the courts have run roughshod with such cases.
Who knows how SCOTUS will end up on this. Who thought that Chief Justice John Roberts would vote how he did concerning Obamacare?
That was the exact example I was thinking of.
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.