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 ...
The idea that the government is the giver of rights sounds like liberal activism masquerading as liberal activism.
What about laws preventing convicted pedophiles from living near schools or working for day cares? Are you against those? What about laws against people convicted of fraud from bidding on state contracts? There are thousands of laws across the country that prevent convicted criminals from doing all sorts of things. If you strike them down for gun rights, you’re going to make the ACLU awful happy because you’ll have precedent for striking them down for everything else. Talk about progressive arguments...
Thank you.
When you commit a crime you forfeit your rights. You have a right to life -- until you murder someone. You have a right to liberty -- until you're locked in jail after being convicted of a crime. Felons forfeit rights. That's always been the case, and it was what the founders always intended.
More like a no alcohol use or possession of it term of probation.
I commented to your original post, which was BS.
I posted the facts for your reading pleasure.
You lost the debate.
The people, via the legislature, can set the punishment for crimes. They have done so.
If they so choose, they can make people who rob 7-11s wear a slushy on their head for the rest of their life. Barring SCOTUS declaring its cruel and unusual, it is good to go.
Punishment, by its very nature, involves the loss of freedom. You want to pretend that it must be all or nothing, but that has never been the case.
Why is this confusing you?
Argue like a progressive and I’ll treat you like one.
If you don’t have the manhood to stick to the argument, I’m not going to waste time on you because you’re a willfully ignorant progressive.
Well, unless SCOTUS limits their decision to saying the Second Amendment bars states from attaching some or all conditions to the exercise of Second Amendment rights . In that case, many would not see it as a power grab by the feds but, instead, as taking tinkering with the Bill of Rights away from the states.
That said, SCOTUS does (rightly) subscribe to the idea that all rights under the Bill of Rights are not inalienable without sanctioning the idea that states can pass whatever they want to limit those rights.
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.
Devil's advocate rebuttal - yeah, but bidding on & receiving contracts is not a constitutional right.
That has not always been the case.
I hear ya, but I know some pretty stupid people.
If someone pays their debt, why not? Of course, too many aren’t paying their debt.
As a condition during their parole, it would be totally permissible, as ex post facto only applies to the sentence. As a restriction that exists after the period of their sentence (paroled or incarcerated), you have a valid point, for those who were convicted prior to 1968.
I don't see how it would not constitute an ex post facto violation for those pre-1968 convictions.
> Shall not be infringed.
Unless you are a felon. And the government intends on turning all of us into felons.
Progressives always want to present an ever changing argument. Its infuriating but unworthy of wasting time on because progressives never accept that they’re wrong.
They start an argument about felons losing rights forever and when they start losing on that they shift to voting rights. When they lose on voting rights they throw out a straw man about voting in prison. That’s such a pointless strawman that they then shift to pedophiles living near schools.
At that point its become a pointless argument with a coward.
Nope. The fact that you misread my post is your fault, not mine. I never said permanent disenfranchisement. Just disenfranchisement.
You lost the debate.
LOL. Whatever.
Yes it has. Not always for firearms (nationally) but it has been true for various other rights forever. Including the most basic rights, the right to liberty, the right to life and the right to property -- some or all of which can be forfeited upon conviction of a crime.
You have already been schooled on your erroneous facts so there is no point in responding to your continued use of them.
The framers of the Constitution saw three rights as underlying all other rights: life, liberty and property. Some or all of those rights can be forfeited if you commit a felony. That has been the case since the ink was still wet on the Constitution. That was the case before the passage of the Bill of Rights and afterwards. I have yet to hear a cogent argument why it should not be the case today.
Not quite — let's take one huge power-grab of policy by all three-branches: the War on Drugs.
Several States have decided that some prohibited drugs are not worthy of being so prohibited — the federal government doesn't like these developments because the entire thing is built on crap: Wickard v. Filburn wherein the USSC declared that Congress, through the interstate commerce clause, could also regulate commerce within the state; Raich v. Gonzalez, wherein the USSC found that non-commerce could ALSO be regulated in the same manner, and so on.
If they so choose, they can make people who rob 7-11s wear a slushy on their head for the rest of their life. Barring SCOTUS declaring its cruel and unusual, it is good to go.
Ah, so the USSE is the sole arbiter of what the Constitution says? I'm so relieved. [/Sarc]
We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. […] When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.Translation: While everything they said would be found covered by the First Amendment in peacetime, because it is wartime we can ignore that the Constitution says
(Schenck v. US)
Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;. Yeah, that's a sure way to guarantee rights.
Punishment, by its very nature, involves the loss of freedom.
Not always — Corporal Punishment.
You want to pretend that it must be all or nothing, but that has never been the case.
Only in your mind.
There are certainly cases where it is; even in non-governmental punishment:
Forgiveness for the Offender
(2 Cor 2:5-11)
But if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but to some extent—not to exaggerate it—to all of you. This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person; so now instead you should forgive and console him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. I wrote for this reason: to test you and to know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ. And we do this so that we may not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.
Why is this confusing you?
Because the embracing of the continual injustice is so interesting, especially your rationalization.
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.