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 distinctly recall that Lois Lerner and her criminal gang in the government were trying to turn Tea-partiers into "criminals". You need to STFU. Your ignorance is showing.
BTW - I hear that Dinesh D'Souza is a "criminal"...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"...
Look up "unalienable", Socialist Boy.
OMG, I guess the only defense then is to do away with all punishment for felons, that will certainly protect us from those tyrannical bastards. Won't they be surprised when they find out they only have the power to criminalize us but not to punish us. Letting all of those rapists and murderers lose is but a small price to pay to secure such a rock solid guarantee. You are such a genius. You've obviously thought out every detail of this brilliant plan of yours. Your head must weigh 50 pounds.
Post me the definition of “unalienable”. That’s all I need.
What a drama queen.
There is no Constitutional or common sense justification for that ultimatum.
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.
Nice that you have an opinion, but that is all it is, your opinion. Just stop trying to pretend that its a Constitutional issue, its not.
Own a mirror?
I simply state your proposal. You want to lesson the punishment for being a rapist and murderer, in the dire hope that doing so would somehow spare you from a tyrant’s wrath, should they gain power.
That is delusional.
Declaration got your tongue?
Ah, another person who can’t figure out due process.
If you don’t think that felons can constitutionally be punished, clearly say so. Otherwise, unalienable rights clearly do not apply to criminals that have been deprived of their rights via legal due process.
Are you implying that the Founding Fathers, who hung murderers, didn’t understand what unalienable meant?
If all men are created equal with unalienable rights...then why does the government get to decide who keeps those rights?
I really posted that? Or did you just put words in my mouth? LOL! :)
Still waiting for that "unalienable" definition. Or do you want me to post Merriam's myownself?
You could pull a Partisan Liberal Media (PLM), and post the least damaging definition for your argument...
It’s your position that no man can be deprived of any right, at any time, for any offense, because rights are unalieanable?
Yes or No?
Nice conversation you're having with yourself, since I clearly posted no such thing. LOL! :)
Perhaps you could have someone read my posts to you.
It’s your position that no man can be deprived of any right, at any time, for any offense, because rights are unalieanable?
Yes or No?
Wouldn't handcuffing and putting them in a cell be wrong?
un·alien·able
adjective \ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈā-lē-ə-\
: impossible to take away or give up
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
We allow a Government to abrogate these Rights at gunpoint, by consent.
That doesn't mean that we FORFEIT the Rights, dimbulb.
Clearly, if we are incapable of punishing people without violating the Constitution, then no restriction what-so-ever can occur.
Yes, its idiocy, but that is where this silliness always ends up. The idea that somehow, someway, felons can only be confined, but their rights cannot be altered in doing so.
I highly suspect that the small number of Freepers, and they are always the same posters, that have an issue with felony punishment have their own personal reasons.
It’s your position that no man can be deprived of any right, at any time, for any offense, because rights are unalieanable?
Yes or No?
CERTAINLY a man or woman can be deprived of any Right, at any time, for any offense. It's usually at gunpoint, and by guys or gals wearing magic blue or brown suits.
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.