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 ...
Pompous gasbag, much?
So your argument is that the government and therefore the laws are no longer legitimate.
OK, that's at least some type of reasoned approach for declaring them invalid.
Are you now ignoring all laws, or just certain laws?
Dude is a snarky gasbag who seems well-contented with his tyrannical Police State, and the dubious “People” who “voted” it in while the rest of us weren’t looking...
No, that does not even begin to cover it.
You’ve repeatedly used the term, “First class citizen” on this thread, yet ya run for the tall grass when asked to define your own term.
I find that quite odd.
“Heinous”
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Dunno. I take my lead from the IRS, the EPA, Holder's Department of Jesters, & the Orifice of the Sunni Present.
What about you? Do you get a tingle up your leg when the head of the corrupt FBI pontificates about "forcing" backdoors into the cellphones of the peasantry?
I don't think that you think. You just gasbag.
First, my “repeated use of the term” was limited to a response to someone else using it. So your attempt to drum up an issue with it is pathetically weak to begin with.
Second, I’ve explained it as clearly and concisely as possible. I don’t know smaller words. Your inablity, I suspect unwillingness, to understand is your personal issue not mine.
SampleHomey don't do definitions.
Goodnight ranters.
Try not to commit any heinous felonies. They still punish people for that sort of thing.
You forgot "In My Gasbag Opinion" (IMGO):
"So your attempt to drum up an issue with it is pathetically weak to begin with, IMGO."
By way of example, no ex-felon is a first class citizen, because all ex-felons have their right to keep and bear arms barred by federal statute.
Similarly, no person convicted of a crime of domestic violence is a first class citizen.
Maybe anybody under a domestic TRO is not a first class citizen. I don't know if a second class citizen can restore first class status, once it's stripped.
And that's just the people barred from keeping and bearing arms.
Probably, for purposes of the argument here, that will probably solve one of the worlds biggest problems, it's close enough, and fair, to say a first class citizen is a person who is never convicted of a felony.
In a tyranny, courts are co-opted.
Everything that was done in Nazi Germany was legal. That's why you can't use that definition.
Eff the government, and its courts.
No it was not. You responded to a comment that the government was creating a class of "second class" citizens by continuing to punish them and restrict their rights once they served their time.
You're the one who initially suggested that someone who commits a crime is not a "first-class citizen"
Are you picking and choosing which crime makes a person a "second class citizen"?
And many even who've actually defended and won against the big boys who have endless dollars and resources, still ended up broke, bankrupt, smeared and ruined. There are a whole lot of people out there who've had this unfortunate experience, and much much worse.
I'm guessing these were all second class citizens.
A big part of the problem is the growing wide spread justified distrust of government at all levels, which includes all the courts in addition to our electoral process.
And those at the top are inordinately aware of this escalating trend or atmosphere of contempt.
Perhaps if you were more specific I would know what you are talking about.
You claimed that "We don't restrict the people from being able to run their government based on presumptions that they will be tyrants. "
The Constitutionally limited government established by our Founders had as its sole purpose the restriction of people running the government so as to prevent tyranny and was founded through force or arms by a minority of the people.
Suggesting that a man who is out of prison and responsible for the welfare of his children should be denied the proper tools to protect them is a reprehensible act which potentially denies to the children their right to life.
I suppose you think they should just "dial 911".
I want no part of it and condemn those who support such a thing.
Virtually the entire Bill of Rights concerns itself with various acts which cannot be criminalized by the government or with protections for those who are suspected or charged with a crime.
Here are a few excerpts from the main body of the Constitution:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ... : but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
... To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
... The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
... No State shall ... ; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,
... The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
... The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
... In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
... No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
... A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
I wrote up a huge post, but I read through it and thought some more. I decided to leave you with this.
Some of the things that those great patriots we call the Founders did during the American Revolution would today be considered felonies.
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.