Supreme court to decide whether US government can 'strip' felons' gun rights

The Guardian ^ | 10/20/2014 | Staff

[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.

[dragnet2]

Because they are not first-class citizens

Has this government defined what that is? Or is this in the Constitution?

What is that specifically?

I'm just not familiar with that term. Thanks

[kiryandil]

Does the suspicion of corruption by the AG in selective prosecution in any way change the constitutional right of the people via the legislature to make laws depriving felons of rights? No.

Live in your little fantasy world. Real Americans are choosing up sides.

Stunning federal corruption case moving forward with almost no media attention
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/stunning_federal_corruption_case_moving_forward_with_almost_no_media_attention.html

[zeugma]

Unless you are a felon. And the government intends on turning all of us into felons.

Well, I commit at least two felonies a day. Sometimes three.

[SampleMan]

I was here from the beginning.

Admitting that you should know better doesn't exactly help your case.

What scares me is the Police State mentality that has been adopted by a significant minority of FReepers like yourself.

I get the impression that a lot of things frighten you. Anyone that screams tyranny when a rapist is penned up isn't exactly stable.

Perhaps you should keep you powder dry for issues that involve the legitimately unalienable rights of non rapists and murderers.

[Cboldt]

I think stripping ex-felons of the RKBA is unconstitutional and immoral. But that's my opinion - the "law" as handed down by SCOTUS is that unconstitutional laws become constitutional once they achieve the status of "longstanding." Unless, of course, the law has to do with sexual perversion or abortion, in which the longer the law stood, the more unconstitutional it became.

But seriously, stripping ex-felons of the RKBA is relatively new, and accompanied a spate of other incremental measures aimed at the eventual disarming of the public. And also seriously, SCOTUS says stripping ex-felons of the RKBA is constitutional, because it is a longstanding practice.

Some felons in the UK have gun rights restored as a matter of law. Felonies with a sentence of 3 years or less include an additional 5 years of no right to arms.

[SampleMan]

Define it however you like.

People who have committed heinous crimes are not, and should not, be treated as equals among free men.

What is in the Constitution is the leeway for the people to set criminal law and due punishment.

[dragnet2]

Well, I commit at least two felonies a day. Sometimes three.

Since there are now thousands of federal laws, how would you even know?

In fact, I think there have been studies to count them, I think most all failed.

[kiryandil]

Admitting that you should know better doesn't exactly help your case.

For a Police State adherent, you're awfully arrogant.

Anyone that screams tyranny when a rapist is penned up isn't exactly stable.

So, Dinesh D'Souza, who was targeted by a DEMONSTRABLY corrupt Police State organ, is the equivalent of "a rapist".

Got it, Gauleiter SampleMan.

[kiryandil]

Unless, of course, the law has to do with sexual perversion or abortion, in which the longer the law stood, the more unconstitutional it became.

I see what you did there. LOL! :)

[SampleMan]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but prisons haven't ever allowed felons to possess weapons have they? So the restriction isn't new, but rather the lifelong restriction is relatively new.

Ok, but that is a sentence length issue. That would only be unconstitutional if a case for cruel and unusual punishment were shown to apply, right?

Although I think “felony” is too broad of a definition for blanket sentences, that is a separate issue from whether the people have the constitutional authority to give life sentences.

[dragnet2]

Because they are not first-class citizens

Has this government defined what that is? Or is this in the Constitution?

What is that specifically?

I'm just not familiar with that term. Thanks

Define it however you like.

Wait a minute here, you've repeatedly used that term, "First class citizen" on this thread.

Are you now saying there is no legal definition for it?

[kiryandil]

People who have committed heinous crimes are not, and should not, be treated as equals among free men.

Notice the verbal finessing of the Partisan Liberal Media (PLM) here?

"heinous" crimes = "any felony" to American LIVs. Police State boosters are quite happy with that state of affairs...

[dragnet2]

Since you’ve repeatedly used that term, “First class citizen” on this thread, what is your definition of it?

[SampleMan]

For a Police State adherent, you're awfully arrogant.

Well that makes no sense at all. I know you are trying to be witty, but police state adherents are by nature arrogant, so your statement makes you look foolish. Give it another go, you can do better.

So, Dinesh D'Souza, who was targeted by a DEMONSTRABLY corrupt Police State organ, is the equivalent of "a rapist".

A rapist is the equivalent of a rapist, and you don't think they should have their rights taken away. If I have to hold up your end of the argument, as well as mine, this is going to get very tiresome. Wait, wait... too, late, you're already very tiresome.

How about you make a short list of the criminals that you are willing to see punished. That might be fun.

[kiryandil]

that is a separate issue from whether the people have the constitutional authority to give life sentences.

"the people" = unidentified "voters", including Juan & Juanita Illegal Immigrant...

[SampleMan]

Which part of my last answer confused you?

Seriously, which part? Felons and nonfelons aren’t equal under the law. Stratify it however you like, I don’t care.

You are obviously working up to some glorious statement that claims everyone has equal rights, even those in prison, except not really, but really, and therefore, my acting like I’m all high and mighty over someone who just chopped up a kindergarten class, makes me the absolute worst type of tyrant, leftist, commie, Obama-lovin, freedom hatin’, Prius drivin’, no-nothin’.

That about cover it?

[dragnet2]

Since you’ve repeatedly used the term, “First class citizen” on this thread, what is your definition of it?

And since government itself has clearly aided and abetted this epic decades long illegal invasion of our country, are you suggesting that somehow they have not made American citizenship all but pointless?

[kiryandil]

A rapist is the equivalent of a rapist, and you don't think they should have their rights taken away.

As I wrote before, they retain their Natural Rights. The People have agreed to allow the Government to take away the Rights of the rapist at gunpoint. You don't seem to understand Natural Rights at all.

You also seem to think that "the People" are what the Government says they are. Au contraire!

[dragnet2]

Since you’ve repeatedly used that term, “First class citizen” on this thread, what is *your* definition of it?

[Cboldt]

-- Correct me if I'm wrong here, but prisons haven't ever allowed felons to possess weapons have they? --

I think that's a reasonable blanket statement. There might be an exception here and there (David Marshall Williams comes to mind), but the general point of prison is that the prisoner is completely subject to the power of the state. This stands in contrast to the free man, who, under the principle of the Declaration, has a right to perpetrate armed revolution, should the government turn tyrannical.

-- That would only be unconstitutional if a case for cruel and unusual punishment were shown to apply, right? --

I don't think that's the only constitutional / legal argument. "Shall not be infringed" is another angle. But the legal argument is practically irrelevant. The court has no duty to use logic or reason. Many decisions are upheld by sheer nonsense plus the power of the state to enforce its will with force of violence.