Lot of posters here believe rights come from the government. Socialists, Marxists and other leftists believe that! I firmly believe that in my lifetime we will become felons at the stroke of a pen! Our founding fathers stated that we have inalienable rights, perhaps you should spend some time learning what that means!
9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2nd Amendment Ruling
- Thread starter smoothshooter
- Start date
MrOverlay
Member
An infamous man allegedly said "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime". I've been in law enforcement, off and on, for approximately 40 years. If it's ok to take one constitutional right, why not more of them?
My opinion, we have gone too far in stripping rights from citizens under a one size fits all process.
Wyatt Burp
Member
Certain people think that unless you’re the depraved loser drug addicted son of a very powerful person with certain opinions that jive with their own you should not own a gun if convicted of a felony. in fact they feel you/us shouldn’t own them anyway. I think anyone released from prison should have the right to own a gun. If someone thinks they shouldn’t then they must still be a danger and shouldn’t be paroled in the first place.
Under what circumstances should a released "felon" also be denied his rights guaranteed (not granted) by 1st and 3rd-8th amendments?
GypsmJim
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 7,180
So Johnny Jones rapes and murders his girlfriend with a firearm. More than one person was involved. He gets a deal and gets convicted for 20 years to life, and then gets paroled after 15 years for good behavior.
He served his sentence. He was paroled because the law gave him freedom. Some people would say that he is now rehabilitated. Maybe yes, maybe no. I say he should have had life with no parole in the first place. But that's just my opinion.
In any event, you say he should now be able to buy a gun. I say OMG what has our society come to!
OTOH, a kid gets in trouble because he had 2 joints in his pocket. Sure it was illegal at the time, but now it is legal. Regardless, AT THE TIME he knew it was ILLEGAL but decided to become a felon anyway. OK, let the pissant have a gun. I concede.
Obviously, 2 extremes. The problem is all the cases in between. Who makes the judgement on what level is gun worthy?
Buick
Member
Wyatt Burp
Member
I, too, think Johnny Jones should still be in prison, but he isn’t. So yes, he should get to own a gun if he wants. If he ran his girlfriend over with a car would you think he should be denied a drivers license for life but a gun might be OK? Like you said, between your two extremes are very or slightly vague examples. And who should then decide who can own a gun in those cases? Where are the lines drawn, and how can that be decided without letting our own personal feelings and prejudices (I don’t mean racial) cause inconsistent and unfair outcomes? That gives too much wiggle room for denying others the right. Like if a gun owner is filmed arguing with his wife, that can be twisted into domestic violence and no gun for him. I think this has happened.
BTW, your examples which were, as you said, extreme, were good ones for the sake of discussion here.
Last edited:
i Guess that i have heard that "who ever said life is fair"had it right
I wonder how many gun owners on this forum have kept from breaking laws knowing that they could lose the rite to own firearms?
I wonder how many gun owners on this forum have kept from breaking laws knowing that they could lose the rite to own firearms?
Last edited:
MrOverlay
Member
With the number of laws on the books, federal and state, a person is lucky indeed to have not ran afoul of a felony offense at some time., intentional or unintentional.
A quarter inch on your rifle or shotgun barrel will subject you to a decade in a federal prison. ATF are revoking dealer license for what appear to be unintentional mistakes under their zero tolerance policy.
Don't forget many posters in the classified section my be subjected to the new definition of dealer, it just depends on what agent is looking at your case.
A quarter inch on your rifle or shotgun barrel will subject you to a decade in a federal prison. ATF are revoking dealer license for what appear to be unintentional mistakes under their zero tolerance policy.
Don't forget many posters in the classified section my be subjected to the new definition of dealer, it just depends on what agent is looking at your case.
dsf
Member
Well, one hopes the 9th and others comport with the summary of the Duarte decision on future 2A cases -
"The panel held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society; and that Vongxay, which did not apply the mode of
analysis that Bruen later established and now requires courts
to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen.
Applying Bruen’s two-step, text-and-history framework, the panel concluded (1) Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text, that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a]handgun[] publicly for self-defense”—falls within the
Second Amendment’s plain language, and that Duarte is part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects because he is an American citizen; and (2) the Government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, “is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right."
I don't wear a hat but if I did, the above seems a good place to hang it.
"The panel held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society; and that Vongxay, which did not apply the mode of
analysis that Bruen later established and now requires courts
to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen.
Applying Bruen’s two-step, text-and-history framework, the panel concluded (1) Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text, that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a]handgun[] publicly for self-defense”—falls within the
Second Amendment’s plain language, and that Duarte is part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects because he is an American citizen; and (2) the Government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, “is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right."
I don't wear a hat but if I did, the above seems a good place to hang it.
I believe the person that brought the case, or at least one of the challenges was a felon because he lied on a welfare application like 20 years ago. He is now an upstanding citizen.
There are some felons that didn't even know what they did was a felon and some states have felonies that are not felonies in other states.
For example, many of us have carry permits and are perfectly legal to carry in like 40 states, but you go to New Jersey with your handgun and you are now a felon. Should you be barred from carrying for life? Some folks even forgot they were carrying when they were caught.
The felony and circumstances do matter.
Rosewood
Last edited:
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
This. In a nutshell.
The only person I would trust would be me. That would work. But at some point I will die and then who would take over???
The writers of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers already figured that out.
Yes, but the Constitution did not say anything about needing a government ID, a Social Security Card number, or any kind of back ground check in order to exercise any or the rights listed in the Amendments, in fact they framers felt the people were born with ALL of those in the first 10.
I am quite sure most of them would not have approved of things like FROD cards, 4473s or carry permits. The very idea that you needed to have a permit to carry a firearm in you carriage would have send most of them over the edge and they certainly would have thought a law saying your guns could not be loaded while in your vehicle was a violation of the 2nd.
We have came a long ways from what the framers meant when they wrote the constitution and when the bill of rights were ratified.
It gets me that a lot of those here seem to be fine with it.
IF losing you rights under ANY of those enumerated in the constitution, it should be clearly stated during sentencing. None of it should be a case of in addition.
If your a felon you can still practice the religion of your choosing, your still entitled to reasonable bail, solderers can not be billeted in your home, you have a right to be secure in your home and papers and not testify against yourself, you have a right to a speedy jury trial in both criminal and civil cases, in fact the ONLY right you lose is the right to keep and bear arms,
The right of everyone to vote is NOT mentioned by any amendment. 15 th, The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied State on or abridged by the United States or by any account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. the 19th on account of sex and the 26th on the account of age if over 18. No where do any of these prohibit being denied due to criminal history unless you construted being sentenced for a felony being a condition of servitude and then their right to vote would be protected.
BUT NOWHERE IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE MENTIONED BEING FOR ALL
I am quite sure most of them would not have approved of things like FROD cards, 4473s or carry permits. The very idea that you needed to have a permit to carry a firearm in you carriage would have send most of them over the edge and they certainly would have thought a law saying your guns could not be loaded while in your vehicle was a violation of the 2nd.
We have came a long ways from what the framers meant when they wrote the constitution and when the bill of rights were ratified.
It gets me that a lot of those here seem to be fine with it.
IF losing you rights under ANY of those enumerated in the constitution, it should be clearly stated during sentencing. None of it should be a case of in addition.
If your a felon you can still practice the religion of your choosing, your still entitled to reasonable bail, solderers can not be billeted in your home, you have a right to be secure in your home and papers and not testify against yourself, you have a right to a speedy jury trial in both criminal and civil cases, in fact the ONLY right you lose is the right to keep and bear arms,
The right of everyone to vote is NOT mentioned by any amendment. 15 th, The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied State on or abridged by the United States or by any account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. the 19th on account of sex and the 26th on the account of age if over 18. No where do any of these prohibit being denied due to criminal history unless you construted being sentenced for a felony being a condition of servitude and then their right to vote would be protected.
BUT NOWHERE IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE MENTIONED BEING FOR ALL
Last edited:
Correct, I mixed Rahimi 922 (g)(8) up with Range 922 (g)(1).
It makes a lot of difference. I remember a case where someone was convicted of a felony because he shipped flower seeds via mail without a license to sell flower seeds.
That should be a fine, if anything.
The problem is that the government, especially the federal government as represented by Congress, has continued to lower the bar for what constitutes a felony.
Whether it's intended or not, that has had the effect of increasing the number of Prohibited People.
That should be a fine, if anything.
The problem is that the government, especially the federal government as represented by Congress, has continued to lower the bar for what constitutes a felony.
Whether it's intended or not, that has had the effect of increasing the number of Prohibited People.
bushmaster1313
Member
In New Jersey if you are nabbed outside your house with a magazine loaded with 10 hollow points you have committed 10 felonies
GypsmJim
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 7,180
Count me in.
But it goes deeper than that. I keep from breaking the laws because of my Christian upbringing. Do unto others and all that ****.
I don't speed because if I get a ticket my insurance rates will go up. I'm just cheap.
My camp is one road away from PA, and I can't carry there. So when I go across the border I keep the guns at the cabin. Who knows, what if I have an accident.
Avoiding being a felon means more than guns. It's all about being a responsible honest citizen.
A good friend got a DWI and a few years later he applied for a pistol permit. Not available to him any more. Harsh? Maybe. What if he had killed a little kid while drunk. Personal responsibility?
If you forgot you had a handgun in your carry-on and go thru TSA at the airport, you should not be charged as a felon, but rather as a moron. When the judge lets you off with no bail, please don't text while you're driving home....
Last edited:
Brilliantly stated.
Similar threads
