Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should a felon's right to bear arms be taken away?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

posted by Whoknew
The term burden was used 7 times in the religious freedom act. The point you are making to me is simply that this subject is to grey. It would be hard to enforce. With that in mind it shouldn't be. Vague equals reasonable doubt. So long as it is a non-violent, no victim event, leave them alone.


Repetition is not clarification. Using synonyms sometimes helps in deciding what a particular word means in the context. But repeating the same word many times does not make it “stronger” or more “understandable” in conveying thoughts from one person to another.

W/K, you have suggested: “So long as it is a non-violent, no victim event, leave them alone.” That is the mantra of the legalize marijuana movement. But society as expressed through its legislatures has rejected that argument. My only point is the 1993 Act may not overrule the 1990 case.

Further W/K, you have also illustrated my dissent: “Vague equals reasonable doubt.” If there is reasonable doubt, you cannot convict in a criminal case.

Now, S/F does not like my usage of the term “overrule” in this contest and so let me add that Congress may not have *set aside* or *counter-manded* the 1990 case law in its 1993 enactment. I don’t know because I don’t know what effect the 1993 law had on the 1990 case. I don’t know if 1993 dealt with peyote by name. I’m not at all sure I’d think banning the use of peyote in religious services was a “burden” on anyone. It’s just one more thing we cannot do in today’s crowded world, like peeing on the sidewalk. Etc.

[edit on 6/4/2007 by donwhite]




posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
The US Constitution, .....


WOW. Good post. I'll be pondering that for a while.



Originally posted by Jvillezbank
Should a felon's right to bear arms be taken away?


Excellent question. My SUBJECTIVE answer at this point is this -

If it wasn't a violent crime, then he/she should have the right to bear arms immediately upon exiting jail/prison.

If it was a violent crime, then impose a certain time frame after jail that he/she isn't allowed to own firearms. Sort of a probationary period after exiting jail, just to be sure. If they go through this time period without being violent, then they should have their right to bear arms reinstated.

I'm open to changing my mind on this.

Excellent question jvillezbank.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   


posted by semperfortis


Congress can overrule the Supreme Court although that is very rare.


Please show me where Congress has ever overruled the Supreme Court...Congress can and has before enacted laws that side step the rulings of the court, but congress has no authority what so ever over the Supreme Court..


Hmm? Semantics? Or substance? I should ignore the 13th Amendment and the Dred Scot case? Blacks cannot ever be a citizen. I should ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act - granting free and equal access to privately owned but serving the public facilities - and Plessey v. Ferguson, standing for separate but equal satisfies the Constitution.

Will 2 examples suffice where you only asked for one?


Reference Foot Note: US Con Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

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.

But see also
US Con Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . (9) To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; And (18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

[edit on 6/4/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
If said felon was convicted of a violent crime,i.e.assault etc than i would think this person has forfeited his right to gun ownership.We have this right to bear arms as DEFENSE not gangsterism!



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I will pose this question here, since there is no other place where it fits better. I do not mean to veer off topic, and I do not think that I am since this discussion centers on the rights of ex-felons.

The case may seem clearer for gun ownership, considering the potential for violence, but what of the right to vote? This is a less perilous thing than gun ownership, yet it too is regularly denied to ex-felons.

Where, in word or spirit of the Constitution, does the governing body of these states have the right to disenfranchise a segment of the population, once the 'debt' to society is paid? Does not the term 'paid' have any meaning?

My concern over this is that those acts which lead to being a felon could be as simple as a custody battle issue or criminal trespass. The use of such a practice could be used for political manipulation. The large number of ex-felons leaves a significant portion of our society without a voice in their governance, irrespective of the original offense.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
There are things called adjudication withheld and first time offenders act.
You could be a felon do your time on probation without any problems and when its completed your rights are returned to you.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Digital, yes, you are right. But what of someone who is a political activist, let us say. This person gets multiple convictions for protesting the war. Or take the case of the young man now facing a dishonorable discharge from the Marines. If these people persisted in trying to be a voice against our government, at some point they could get a felony conviction that netted some jail time.

Why should they lose their voice in the overall process of government? And any ex-felon, for that matter? Once the punishment for whatever crime has been committed is paid, that person returns to society, yet is barred from full participation.

If any ex-felon holds a job, then they are paying taxes. Is this then not taxation without representation? If they own land, and pay their taxes on that land, should they still be ineligible to vote on things like zoning laws, or school bond issues?



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Digital, yes, you are right. But what of someone who is a political activist, let us say. This person gets multiple convictions for protesting the war. Or take the case of the young man now facing a dishonorable discharge from the Marines. If these people persisted in trying to be a voice against our government, at some point they could get a felony conviction that netted some jail time.

Why should they lose their voice in the overall process of government? And any ex-felon, for that matter? Once the punishment for whatever crime has been committed is paid, that person returns to society, yet is barred from full participation.

If any ex-felon holds a job, then they are paying taxes. Is this then not taxation without representation? If they own land, and pay their taxes on that land, should they still be ineligible to vote on things like zoning laws, or school bond issues?


I agree that the points you have presented are all valid issues that should be reevaluated. Unfortunately there are many aspects of the law in witch the middle ground is hard to find. I think all the examples you have brought up should be the kind of cases that should be conditional and not just instances where rights are taken away and not given back. The law is not perfect and never will be. If it were me in one of those positions your using as an example I would look into getting a lawyer and getting my record expunged. It is expensive but it is still another option.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   


posted by NGC2736

I pose this question. I do not think I veer off topic since this discussion centers on the rights of ex-felons. The case may seem clearer for gun ownership, considering the potential for violence, but what of the right to vote? This is a less perilous thing than gun ownership, yet it too is regularly denied to ex-felons.

Where, in word or spirit of the Constitution, does the governing body of these states have the right to disenfranchise a segment of the population, once the 'debt' to society is paid?

The large number of ex-felons leaves a significant portion of our society without a voice in their governance, irrespective of the original offense. [Edited by Don W]


Con. Law 101. If I may presume . . .

There was no national or American citizenship until the 14th Amendment became effective on July 28, 1868. Arguably the most important amendment of all. We really ought to celebrate that day! Citizenship Day. Southern mentality really does not accept the concept to this very day. The struggle that begun between Jefferson and Hamilton goes on. Strong central government versus weak central government. While that issue should have been settled in the War of the Rebellion - Civil War in popular parlance - 1861-1865, that is a case of the Union wining the war but losing the peace. Say Hello, Iraq! But I digress.

Amendment XIV Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

FYI, the use of the world “person” in this amendment is the legal basis of Roe v. Wade, that case holding a fetus is not a person under this amendment until it is born alive and therefore a fetus is not entitled to constitutional protections.

All American states (except Louisiana and Hawaii) are English common law states or code states. In the case of code states, most of those states began as common law states and usually have a saving clause referring back to the common law. English Common law - as opposed to French or Italian common law - merely means that law common or customary in the vicinage. Your neighborhood. It may vary from place to place. It may vary in its application, in its enforcement and in its punishments. My state of Ky for example, has a clause in its Constitution referring back to the “common law” of England in 1607 as the basic law of the state, subject to modification by the legislature. Judges “find” common law by studying old cases. It is a judicial process. Enough.

The United States of America OTOH, is a code institution. Not a common law institution. It is a government of delegated powers, specified powers, enumerated powers. Not of inherent powers as in the case in common law.

From say 1880 to 1910, the Supreme Court was willing to grant almost unlimited economic powers to the central government in Washington. This was done under an ultra broad interpretation of the commerce clause,
“Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . (3) to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; (18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

The Supreme Court had said any scintilla of the commerce crossing a state line put it all under Federal jurisdiction. “Scintilla” is usually defined as being 1% or more.

Individual states are permitted to make rules for who can vote in local elections, but the Federal government does make rules who votes in Federal elections. Because the South has a “veto” in the Senate, it has been impossible to get a uniform voting eligibility act through Congress.
Unlimited debate. Formerly requiring 67 votes to stop - cloture - but reduced by LBJ to the current 60 votes, still a “super” majority. That means 41 senators can halt the legislative process in America. A compromise made in 1787 to slave holding states.

I’m sorry this got overlong. Read it or skip it.

[edit on 6/4/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
donwhite, are you telling me that this arcane viewpoint is a holdover from the War of Yankee Aggression,
, otherwise known as the Civil War? Why then, pray tell, is it so widespread in the northern states?

And too, am I wrong in understanding that the Constitution is so easily overridden as regards the civil liberties of the individual? If this is so, then the Voter Registration Act is partisan to minorities only.

We may yet have another basis for dispute in our nation on state's rights. It would seem from past events that no state could legally enact any law that was designed to circumvent the representation clause. This idea was tested and failed with that group of laws commonly referred to as 'Jim Crow Laws.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   


posted by NGC2736

donwhite, are you telling me that this arcane viewpoint is a holdover from the War of Yankee Aggression, otherwise known as the Civil War? Why then, pray tell, is it so widespread in the northern states?


My guess is that most Americans (80%) do not like any authority, Federal or state.



And too, am I wrong in understanding that the Constitution is so easily overridden as regards the civil liberties of the individual? If this is so, then the Voter Registration Act is partisan to minorities only.


I attribute that to the unintended effect of Republicans trying to undo the economic liberal on the Supreme Court with so-called original intents persons appointed by Reagan, Bush41 and Bush 43. Those people are willing to tolerate abuses which ordinary citizens do not. That is the price you pay for Conservative versus Liberal on the Courts. This is what all the fights over nominations is about.



We may yet have another basis for dispute in our nation on state's rights. It would seem from past events that no state could legally enact any law that was designed to circumvent the representation clause. This idea was tested and failed with that group of laws commonly referred to as 'Jim Crow Laws.


Old ways die hard.

[edit on 6/4/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Perhaps it will require some hard headed ex-felon refusing to pay taxes, and gaining national attention over it, to bring this to the forefront of debate. I can hardly see how it would lose, though vast sums of money would be required.

I do understand that as things are now, no political candidate would touch this with a ten foot pole, as it would be political suicide.

Another sad note on the fact that freedom, and the ideals behind this nation, are all but lost.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   


posted by NGC2736

Perhaps some hard headed ex-felon refusing to pay taxes and gaining national attention bringing this to the forefront. I can hardly see how it would lose, though vast sums of money would be required. I do understand that as things are now, no political candidate would touch this with a ten foot pole, as it would be political suicide. Another sad note on the fact that freedom, and the ideals behind this nation, are all but lost. [Edited by Don W]


Take heart, Mr NGC2736. In the 1890s we had the anarchists from central Europe that scared us. Then came the first Red scare of the late nineteen-teens and into the 1920s. Again we were scared. Then the second Red scare of the late 1940s into the mid 1950s and again we were scared. We broke all our own civil liberty laws in each case. But when the threats settled down, subsided, we went back to the “good old days.” Today’s war on terror is just another interruption in the good life we have enjoyed here for the most part. Take heart! It will get back to normal soon. Reason will prevail. We can then resume arguing strong central government versus weak central government. Our more traditional argument.

[edit on 6/4/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

posted by NGC2736
We may yet have another basis for dispute in our nation on state's rights. It would seem from past events that no state could legally enact any law that was designed to circumvent the [14th Amendment’s] representation clause. This idea was tested and failed with that group of laws commonly referred to as 'Jim Crow’ Laws. [Edited by Don W]


Well, maybe. The 13th amendment freeing slaves, the 14th granting national citizenship and the 15th giving black men the right to vote, were all passed into law by March 30, 1870. Reconstruction of the States in Rebellion is generally said to have ended with the inglorious election of 1876. In reality, there had been resistance to Reconstruction from the very beginning. 1866. It usually took Blue Coats - Union Army - to make it work. the North was growing weary of this extra expense item. And felt they had done all they could for the blacks. Affirmative action and set asides were not on the North's agenda.

1876, when an unholy deal was made - the Dems - which by then meant mostly Southern Dems - got to recapture power in the South and the Republicans got the presidency in Rutherford B. Hayes and a free hand in the newly expanding western states. Reconstruction was ended. Southern white unleashed a reign of terror on the recently freed former slaves. It’s goal was to subject them to the same level of exploitation the white masters had enjoyed before 1865.

In the process of restoring racial supremacy it is reliably reported that ending in 1965, 3,000 blacks were lynched - a strangulation process not to be confused with the more humane neck snapping legal hanging - that 15,000 black men were so severely beaten they never resumed a normal life and that over 50,000 black homesteads were burned out, the set fires consuming everything on this earth that poor people can accumulate over a lifetime. There was no Red Cross or Salivation Army then.

Blacks had no access to medical care. White doctors would not treat blacks. Blacks had no soup kitchens or food stamps to fall back on. It is not reported how many blacks starved to death or died from lack of medical care from 1865 to 1965, but you can be sure the number is in the 10s of 1000s. Proud? Proud of what? Proud to be an Ameican? Hmm?

A lot of this terrorism was done by the sheet weaning hooded Ku Klux Klan but not all. White mobs were just as quick to hang or whip a black man then as they proved to be in 1955, when Emitt Till, a 14 year old black boy was murdered in Mississippi for whistling at a white woman. Story: “Two men named Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam kidnaped him took him to the Hallatachie River, beat him, gouged his eye out, broke his legs, shot him, bashed the left side of his head in, tied barb wire to his ankles and threw him into the river.”

In 1896, in the infamous Plessey v. Ferguson case - nearly equal to the Dred Scot case - the United States Supreme Court said that separate but equal satisfied the US Constitutional requirement of equal treatment under law. That case put the legal imprimatur of the Highest Court in the Land on segregation and all that it stood for (and stands for today). Racism is alive and well in 2007 in the US of A.

Mr NGC2736, you wrote “This idea was tested and failed . . “ is right, but it took from 1865 - end of slavery - to 1965 - Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws - 100 years - and it still is resisted in every way possible in 2007. Whether people want to face it or not, the Republicans demagogue this issue to gain white votes. Shame on them! The Democrats do not demagogue it. That is one very important difference between the two parties.

[edit on 6/4/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
First, my apologies for veering off topic to some extent. And a large thank you for all the information.

And I will weigh in on the matter of guns. When any person has paid whatever debt that the law of the land states is the punishment for that crime, then the record should be wiped clean.

My position includes the ownership of weapons. And I bolster that on the premise that anything less is an underhanded move to create a serf class that lacks the full citizenship due under the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Well I'm sort of stuck in the middle...(if it was a violent crime)...

The person who committed the crime has proven that they can't be trusted with a weapon, and therefore should not have the right to own one..

But then again, even if they did commit a crime they did their time. But does that make up for it? Could they earn the right again?

Eh..

I'd say no. They shouldn't have the right to own a weapon if they commit a violent crime. You should have the right to own a weapon until you prove that you cannot be trusted with it.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Hmm? Semantics? Or substance? I should ignore the 13th Amendment and the Dred Scot case? Blacks cannot ever be a citizen. I should ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act - granting free and equal access to privately owned but serving the public facilities - and Plessey v. Ferguson, standing for separate but equal satisfies the Constitution.

Will 2 examples suffice where you only asked for one?


All wonderful examples of legislation that was enacted that went contradictory to the Supreme Court rulings...

You said the Legislature can OVERRULE the Supreme Court...

I asked for an example and you have failed thus far..

Perhaps you could elaborate on the body of legislature that is granted such supreme power as to negate the third and arguable most powerful arm of the United States Government?

I am not familiar with such an august body...

Semper



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
The first person who replied to this, I agree. However, I feel that your prison sentence isn't over once you get out of jail. You should be punished for life by not being able to work in certain fields, vote, and other things. If it's a violent crime such as murder, assault, robbery, battery, rape, molestation, or even a crime involving drugs and firearms, you shouldn't be allowed a gun once you get out. But alas, criminals always find a way to get a hold of one.

On a side not, once your checked into a mental institution, your not allowed to buy a gun again.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   


posted by JohnnyCanuck

If you can be banned from driving if you rack up too many serious offenses, then why not remove the right to bear arms if you have seriously abused that right by committing gun-related crimes? Mind you, in the States, it's a right to bear arms, but driving is a privilege. How peculiar.


No "rights" are unconditional. Religious liberty incorporated in the First Amendment does not allow Mormons to practice polygamy (legally). Hate speech to provoke violence is not allowed by the “free speech” clause. Assembling for an unlawful purpose is not protected. You may be searched on probable cause and your property may be confiscated with appropriate compensation.

There are 100s of laws restricting the right to own, possess or use firearms. You cannot deface a firearm by removing its serial number. You may not shorten the stock or barrel below certain limits from factory design. You may not make, use or possess a silencer. Even on that does not work.

To gain maximum sales of firearms, the gun manufactures work to produce the aurora of legal unrestrained ownership of guns and are abetted by a lot of otherwise thoughtful people who (purposely) misconstrue the poorly worded Second Amendment.

Follows from Article 6, Articles of Confederation, dated November 15, 1777, the document under which aegis we waged the War of Revolution, 1775-1783. “ . . but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” The Second Amendment was proposed to the states by the First Congress in 1789, and became law on December 15, 1791. My point is that pro-gun control people argue the 2nd Amendment relates only to militias, whereas the anti-gun control people assert it relates to any person.

You Canadians may find it “funny” to realize the Americans have always thought you too wanted to be an American. See Article XI: Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.“ We invaded Canada in 1812 to “liberate” your ancestors but when your ancestors resisted, we got mad and burned the capital, York, now Toronto. In retaliation, the Red Coats burned W-DC in 1814. From Avalon Project via Google.

[edit on 6/15/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I think the people have spoken....owning a weapon a bulletproof vest should be based on WHAT you did, not whether you committed a felony or not. Hell, you can get a felony for catching wireless internet, so you will not be able to defend yourself ever again? WTF?!?


So yeah, let it be the nature of the crime that decides if you get to own one , just like for a goddamn job.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join