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 ...
As I said, the Constitution isn’t a criminal law book. That you for demonstrating that.
It defines powers to pass laws, restricts certain laws, and the Bill of Rights enumerates multiple rights. The latter of which you can certainly read as a prohibition on criminalizing certain actions.
Not one word in there on how to punish a common criminal, except for cruel and unusual punishment, which I mentioned originally.
Unless you want to head down the path of your compatriot and declare that felons cannot be constitutionally deprived of their rights, I’m not clear what the purpose of your post was.
For certain treason against the Crown, would head the list.
But what is your point? That we shouldn't criminalize everything? Yea, I agree. But I've been agreeing with that since the beginning of this thread, and its not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is whether criminals can be constitutionally stripped of their rights. The answer to that is clearly yes.
What should or should not be a felony and whether all felonies are de facto worthy of a blanket prohibition is a separate argument. One that breaks down to the individual acts. Would you not agree?
There is a spacious argument being presented on this thread that by lessening the punishment for serious crime, we somehow inoculate ourselves from future tyrants who will define us as criminals. There is nothing that would sway a shallow minded populace to draconian laws faster than a previous period of lack punishment for serious offenses.
Well, Lois Lerner should get the needle for her crimes against the Republic
How does he protect them when you place him in prison? Oh, darn, didn't think of that did you? You are taking the illogical stand that these hypothetical children are better protected by their murdering rapist father when he is in prison, than when he is under lesser restrictive measures that allow him to be present. Although, given his murdering rapist tendencies, you might well be correct about the children being in greater danger with him home than in prison.
I suppose you think they should just "dial 911".
They should call the prison, where you put their father, and ask him to come quickly.
If I thought there were any sincerity in your inability to understand the context of the statement I would try to explain it to you in more simple terms. However, I'm confident that you are simply being obstinate because you wish to divert the argument.
Yep, I sure am.
Convicted murderer-rapist = not an upright 'first-class' citizen.
Convicted jay-walker = untainted 'first-class' citizen.
You would be amazed at how easy logical decisions are, once you give them a try.
They are not sentenced. A judge does not sentence one to a lifetime loss of the right to bear arms. It is something the Fed prohibits via the Commerce Clause once someone has a felony on their record.
I think revocation of unalienable rights beyond the completion of a sentence is cruel and unusual.
Someone who commits a felony at 19 years old should not still be prohibited from gun ownership when they are 35 years old.
Nor should they be prohibited from casting a vote.
OK, so your gasbag opinion is pathetically weak. Can't imagine why you would insist that I point that out. Anything else that I missed to note about your opinion?
Your gasbag opinion is pathetically weak.
Which you claim can be constitutionally abrogated by law. This thread is focused on the right to keep and bear arms, and your claim is that it is constitutional to strip this right from a person who is not otherwise under the control of the state, e.g., as a prisoner or parolee.
Does this punishment power of the federal government (what you claim is the constitutional authority to permanently strip a felon of the right to keep and bear arms, expressed in the constitution) extend to the right to free speech? To participate in a free and peaceful assembly of the people to petition for redress of grievances? To the free exercise of religion? To be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Some of those rights are obviously forfeit while a person is imprisoned, but the power of the government over its prisoners is not the issue at hand. The issue is the power of the government over people who have committed felonies and have completed serving the sentence prescribed under the felony law -- the prohibition to possess firearms being excluded from that list, because the question is whether or not that particular felony and stripping is constitutional.
Related, would it be constitutional to enforce a modification to the law that prohibits possession of firearms to include people who have ever been cited for a traffic or parking violation, and paid the fine? You seem to have argued that any penalty enacted into law is not rendered unconstitutional on an ex post facto basis. The federal courts do find such penalty modification to be constitutional, when upholding the Lautenberg amendment, which modified the punishment for people convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. I realize that's an extreme hypothetical, and that it's not likely to ever pass; still, it's useful for the purpose of probing whether you are willing to go as far as the federal courts. That sort of a "which controls in principle (not in practice), the constitution, or the courts? In practice, the courts control. If I've mixed you up with somebody else who made the ex post fact argument, you can ignore this question and still be responsive to my post.
There are no forced plea-bargains, such as Dinesh D'Souza's "felony", nor are there any "felonies" for damaging the wooden club, fists or boots of a King's man...
It is to laugh.
Oh, NOW you’ve done it! LOL! :)
The Lautenberg amendment is a prime example of the over reach of the Congress. To advise the regulating agency to treat state court sentenced misdemeanors as felonies is disgusting.
Technically, a judge does impose the sentence. His authority and duty to do so stems from the existence of the statute. Implicit in sentencing is a finding that the law and sentence are constitutional.
So, there are two actors in that play, three if you count the arresting agency. The legislature passes the law, the court determines whether or not the law was violated and if it was, the court imposes the sentence prescribed under the law.
The way the lifetime ban comes up is that a person is arrested a second time, and this time a violation of the "felon in possession" law is charged. If the court finds the person has a felony record, and that the person was in possession, then it concludes a violation has occurred, and it imposes the sentence.
It's also naked Tyranny on the face of it.
Criminal code does include mandatory minimum sentences and punishments, which are valid. If I get 13 points on my license in a year, I lose it without a judge ever being involved.
It is something the Fed prohibits via the Commerce Clause once someone has a felony on their record.
Most Federal law is now based on a misreading of the Commerce Clause. In that we agree. However, all states except Vermont restrict access to firearms by felons, and that has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause. So if you could repeal all of the excessive federal laws, you would still be faced with the state laws.
I think revocation of unalienable rights beyond the completion of a sentence is cruel and unusual.
If the state has a law stating lifetime restrictions as a minimum punishment for a given crime, I don't see how you get around that being part of the sentence. You are wishing to create a definition of sentence that only includes part of the mandated punishment. That you think it is cruel and unusual is noted, but I find pulling off someone's arms and legs or drawing out their internal organs to be more deserving of the term.
1. Law states that if you are convicted of X you will lose your rights for life.
2. You are convicted of X.
3. You are under the control of the state for life, in that you have lost those rights, and you are subject to enforcement.
You want to pretend that criminal code can't hand out life-sentences and that punishment can only be defined by periods of incarceration. You are of course wrong.
Feel like not all felonies are worthy of a life sentence? OK, that is an issue worth considering, but it is an entirely different subject from constitutionality.
You get around it by finding the lifetime restriction to be unconstitutional. That's what this entire debate is about.
Is your position that there is no such thing as an unconstitutional lifetime restriction of a right enumerated in the bill of rights?
You’re not very good at this are you?
Once I turn your phrase back on you, you’ve really lost the window of opportunity for doing it yourself. When you try, it just makes you sound like a 2nd grader shouting “I know you are, but what am I”.
I am not pretending or claiming that life-sentences or the death penalty are unconstitutional. The issue is whether or not it is constitutional to impose a lifetime ban on a felon who has served his sentence.
I am also not pretending that the period of incarceration is the only measure. I specifically named parolee, and there are other categories of government supervision, outside of incarceration. If you are willing to engage in an intellectually honest debate (and I have my doubts on that), then you will agree that there are people who have fully served their felony sentence (again, setting aside the issue being debated, whether lifetime bans are constitutional).
If your argument is that a lifetime ban is constitutional simply because it is part of the sentence, then you assume the conclusion. I am not supposing it is constitutional just because it is expressed in law.
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.