It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I should add it isnt just for felonies. Misdemeanor assault will cost you your gun rights as well.edit on 28-12-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)
Effects on law enforcement officers The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) sent a notice to every law enforcement agency when this law went into effect. Police officers with prior misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence from years earlier were no longer permitted to possess firearms under the new federal law. Several officers were fired for such misdemeanor offenses committed before the law was passed. Several of the gun magazines printed a copy of this new ATF order at the time. In Speller vs. VA, Cpl. Dontae Speller of the Hampton University Police Department plead guilty to domestic assault and received anger management with 2 years of probation. Cpl. D. Speller was allowed to return to work carrying his firearm during the 2 year probationary period.
What makes us think we have rights? I hear people say things like, "Stand up for your rights!" or "It's my right!" or "He has no right to do that!" and of course, "God given rights.". We all walk around thinking this way, but isn't it a really just a false sense of security? In reality, what we actually have are privileges. Not given by God, but rather a man made illusion. That man is the federal government and they can, and do, take them from us whenever they find it useful to their cause. Following the Pearl Harbor incident, thousands of Japanese Americans began to lose their privileges. In Feb.,1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt began doing this by signed Executive Order 9066. This was the first of what would be a series of orders, devised by one mans authority, created to deny citizens of their privileges. Japanese American internment refers to the forcible relocation and internment in 1942 of approximately 110,000 Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans to housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps", in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast of the United States were all interned, whereas in Hawaii, where more than 150,000 Japanese Americans composed nearly a third of that territory's population, only 1,200 to 1,800 Japanese Americans were interned. Of those interned, 62 percent were United States citizens. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders, while noting that the provisions that singled out people of Japanese ancestry were a separate issue outside the scope of the proceedings. Eventually between 100,000-120,000 American citizens, most of whom were born in the US, had lost everything, including their assets. They were locked away in internment camps and you can imagine how they were treated. Though the Constitution states only Congress can change it's protections, Roosevelt did it quite easily? The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066. - Former Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states "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." but the clause's location implies this authority is vested in Congress, rather than the President. President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt followed in his footsteps by signing Executive Order 9066, permitting exclusion of persons from wartime military zones. Three times now in our history a president has been able to suspend, or disregard, our supposed constitutional rights? Lincoln in the Civil War, Roosevelt in WWII, and Bush in the War on Terror. Worse yet is the fact that many of these laws are still in place today? Several significant legal decisions arose out of Japanese American internment, relating to the powers of the government to detain citizens in wartime. Among the cases which reached the Supreme Court were Yasui v. United States (1943), Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), ex parte Endo (1944), and Korematsu v. United States (1944). In Yasui and Hirabayashi the court upheld the constitutionality of curfews based on Japanese ancestry; in Korematsu the court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion order. In Endo, the court accepted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ruled that the WRA had no authority to subject a citizen whose loyalty was acknowledged to its procedures. It is important to note that the rulings of the US Supreme Court in the 1944 Korematsu and Hirabayashi cases, specifically, its expansive interpretation of government powers in wartime, were not overturned. They are still the law of the land because a lower court cannot overturn a r