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 ...
What about convicted politicians?
No more cushy office holding, retirement, etc.
If the politicians can continue to hold office, citizens can continue their 2nd Amendment unalienable rights.
Or do we want to continue on to the 1st Amendment unalienable rights?
What about the 5th Amendment unalienable rights?
on and on and on...
.
Better question: How can it be conscionable to continue punishing one after he has served his sentence?
By stripping one of their rights permanently you create a second class of citizens; moreover, the initial forbidding of firearms to felons is a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on Ex Post Facto law, even by the USSC's narrow view of what Ex Post Facto means (they deny that any civil law can be Ex Post Facto, asserting only that retroactively increasing criminal punishment qualifies.).
This seems like liberal activism masquerading as conservatism.
I don't think so.
“All states except Vermont strip voting rights from felons.”
Nope, in most cases they get voting rights back once they are off parole.
I think it will come down to SCOTUS being hamstrung by what to do with violent criminals, with neither of their rights being restored (i.e. gun rights or voting rights) or both of those rights being restored.
I wonder, can they set up a two-tier system on this?
I double checked and an at least according to one source Maine may also not disenfranchise felons. So Maine and Vermont. 48 other states do. Now what do you have to say?
The law varies. In all states except Vermont (and apparently Maine) felons are disenfranchised for a period. In some states, they get their voting rights restored automatically, in others they have to apply for restoration, and in other states it's very difficult or impossible to get approval to be reenfranchised.
Yes — once they've served their sentence all rights and privileges should be restored.
If their crime is such that they can never pay their debt to society
then kill them and let that be the end of the matter.
When you use the words “convicted politician” aren’t you using an unnecessary redundancy? LOL.
Keep checking. LOL
Felons don't "serve time" and they don't "pay their debt to society", they are locked away for the protection of others. Other punishments exist, all revolving around forfeiture of rights, also for the protection of others. Its not a guarantor, but it greatly increases the risk to the perp.
If society can take away a felon's life or liberty, they can choose to do lesser punishments, which by nature restrict their rights. Perhaps a purse snatcher can have a 25 pound ball chained to their leg. You may think killing them or life in prison is best for a purse snatcher, but I don't.
All or nothing punishment makes no logical sense. If a man shows a history of animal abuse, banning him for life from owning animals makes more sense than paying $45k a year to house him away.
Don't like what is considered a felony? Change the laws. Ceasing to punish all felons because you think some crimes don't deserve the stigma isn't exactly brilliant, nor is it a winnable political strategy.
Yeah, let's go all out and create a caste system!
Sure, and if you can't muster the popular will to stop that, how do you plan on stopping them from simply banning firearms?
Arguing that a rapist should be given full rights to carry a gun/knife/club, won't win over anyone to the idea that free citizens must be armed.
Look at it as lifetime parole for a felony, which it is. There are legal methods for restoration, and case by case is a good way to do it.
I'm afraid you're the one who has no idea what you're talking about. Felons are barred from all sorts of things under various state laws, Barred from running for office, barred from applying for state contracts, barred from serving on juries. Laws vary state to state, but all states except Vermont (and apparently Maine) have some form of felon disenfranchisement for voting.
Only 4 states strip felons forever of voting rights.
http://www.businessinsider.com/states-that-dont-let-felons-vote-2012-10
Currently all felons get a life sentence. Part of it is incarceration, part is physical parole, and the remainder is selected limits on their freedom.
So you want to kill all violent criminals? Noted.
Well duh, no incarcerated felon should have the right to vote while they’re in prison just like none have a right to a firearm while they’re in prison.
Still its a nice progressive argument shift you have going on there.
Ah, yes, I forgot. The WoDs means that they can strip him of all of his property with a bill of attainder.
Actually, only four states strip ALL felons of voting rights forever, but other states strip SOME felons of voting rights forever, and every other state -- except the two that I mentioned -- strips all or most felons of voting rights for a period.
The point is, this is a state by state decision, and if the Supreme Court rules that states don't have the power to sanction felons, then you're seeing a major power grab by the federal government not just on guns but on lots of other things.
Many states have laws preventing people convicted of fraud from bidding on state contracts. Should they be required now to award contracts to fraudsters? C'mon.
I want to get on the record here, and your description of how this should be viewed is a good one, and one I agree with.
Oh, and how is that not a violation of the 8th Amendment?
How is the abridgment of their ability to own firearms, which started in `68, and applied to people who had served [or were serving] their sentence not Ex Post Facto, which is prohibitted to both the federal government and the states by the Constitution?
Part of it is incarceration, part is physical parole, and the remainder is selected limits on their freedom.
Nope — That's not the way it works.
So you want to kill all violent criminals? Noted.
(How many repeat offenders would we have then?)
I'm certainly not against capital punishment.
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.