Keep in mind that it doesn't even have to be a felony necessarily. In addition to an 18 year old "kid" (even though he's legally an adult) being convicted of some heinous felony like writing bad checks or criminal mischief (vandalism, i.e., spraying grafitti on a boxcar) being barred from possessing a firearm for life, so is a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic assualt. I've seen people, usually men, convicted of that for very minor family disputes, often where some pushing and shoving takes place where it is totally a case of "mutual combat", nobody is injured in the slightest, and yet the police tend to side with the woman in such instances, even where she might have been the instigating party. Conviction of such a misdemeanor is a lifetime bar to owning or possessing a firearm. So is having an order-of-protection taken out.....again, often for very minor conduct, sometimes nothing more than verbal sparring. Think about it next time you are tempted to say to your wife or girlfriend "I'd like to kick your a**!" I've seen OPs granted for no more than that, and if it happens to you, you can kiss your 2A "rights" sayonara. Of course, none of us would never say such a thing in a million years, so I guess we have nothing to worry about. But whatever happened to the ol' "sticks and stones" principle?
Is gun ownership really a right?
- Thread starter Fat B
- Start date
"Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Regardless of circumstances. Period! I may not like the idea that a felon or mentally incapable person can carry a gun, but who am I to deny a God given right? And who outranks God? Nobody on this planet. I know this will inflame some members but so be it.
No they are not. Sex crime offenders have to register with municipalities, where they can and can not live is often controled by policy, not penalties described under law and they have extra-judicial stipulations imposed on them, for example they can't loiter around schools.
I'm not saying it is wrong but it is an example of denying that segment of the population their rights.
That would be afoul of the 8th amendment and article 3 of the U.S. constitution.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 is the law that made it a crime for felons to possess firearms.
It is a bad law for the obvious reason that once you allow one group's rights to be denied, you are on the slippery slope where the bar can be lowered until everyone is denied. And that has happened - the Lautenburg Ammendment, if you have a restraining order against you, etc.
But it is also unconstitutional because it is an ex post facto law. A convicted felon in 1967 was able to legally own firearms. It became a crime for him to do so in 1968. This is an increasing of criminal penalties after the fact. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
It is a bad law for the obvious reason that once you allow one group's rights to be denied, you are on the slippery slope where the bar can be lowered until everyone is denied. And that has happened - the Lautenburg Ammendment, if you have a restraining order against you, etc.
But it is also unconstitutional because it is an ex post facto law. A convicted felon in 1967 was able to legally own firearms. It became a crime for him to do so in 1968. This is an increasing of criminal penalties after the fact. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
JJEH
Member
I don't wanna be a smart@$$, but what is a peaceful felony please?
Mail fraud? Shoplifting a diamond? Taking the label from a mattresses?
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2
JJEH
Member
Good. People who do that shouldn't have the right to posess a firearm. Otherwise they would use it the next time they rob a store. But wait, criminals get weapons anyway... they don't care about laws...
McBear
Member
I was thinking more of tax fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering, bribery...all the Bernie Madoff type felonies; armed robbery sans the armed part.
But the mattress tag thing...I think that says it all.
JJEH
Member
I understand where you coming from. But still, if somebody has such criminal mindset they shouldn't have a right to posess firearms. That's my opinion.
There is right and there is wrong! You can be the greatest guy/gal in the world, but if you do wrong you shouldn't cry about punishment.
Last edited:
I tore some pillow tags off. There, I said it. I've not been sleeping well due to the guilt! There are lots of non-violent or "peaceable" felonies. Writing bad checks. Forgery. Possession of certain drugs. Simple theft. Growing some pot plants. Damaging a highway sign. It used to be a felony in Montana to brand a cow with a frying-pan. Of course, the cow might think that was serious. I could continue with the list. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone any of these offenses. I just don't believe that any person should be deprived of his 2A rights based on them. For that matter, I am inclined to believe that once a person has served his/her sentence and is fully discharged therefrom, regardless of the nature of the offense, his/her 2A rights should resume. I don't disagree with a person being disarmed, obviously, during periods of incarceration or serving probationary time.
Anyone that advocates the suspension of American citizens rights, other than during time of incarceration, does not understand the true meaning of "unalienable rights" nor the reasons behind the American Revolution.
mg357
Absent Comrade
Yes gun ownership is a right and many good men and women have given their lives to protect and defend that right.
McBear
Member
I wasn't supporting the intent to restore rights, that is another conversation. I was just answering the "non-violent felony" question.
To the question of things like banking fraud...anything less that life for folks who defraud pension funds, retirement funds, investment funds and people's life savings is just wrong. That is what it will take to stop that kind of fraud. Otherwise they calculate the Return on Risk. Unless RISK is everything...some bozo will try it.
So you feel free to take away the rights of others? Can I take away your right to free speech if you commit a crime? or I think your mindset is against public interest? Why should the right to bear arms be any different than freedom of speech or the right to a lawyer?
And since you think of gun rights as something that society can take away, then by definition, gun ownership is not a right to you, it's a privilage. Protecting the public interest is the argument used by many anti-gun activists.
JJEH, I'm not trying to pick on you and I understand where your argument is coming from, I just get discouraged when proponents of the 2nd amendment favor limiting the rights of others, which then puts the 2nd amendment in a class by itself- the only right that can be restricted for each individual that is not in jail, or on probation, etc... Too many people agree with you I'm afraid.
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" Unless you've demonstrated bad judgement, many times in areas that have nothing to do with guns or violence. Then we'll read that one as more of a suggestion then a direct statement.
*Sigh*
JJEH
Member
Fat B, my only concern is to keep it realistic.
It's not just black and white... no. There is also some grey in between.
Criminals belong behind bars. And all law abiding citizens rely on the laws which punishes criminal people.
How would you feel if I break into your house, threatening you and your loved ones, rob you and put you through all this. And then, 10 years later (after incarceration) you meet me at the shooting range...
It's not just black and white... no. There is also some grey in between.
Criminals belong behind bars. And all law abiding citizens rely on the laws which punishes criminal people.
How would you feel if I break into your house, threatening you and your loved ones, rob you and put you through all this. And then, 10 years later (after incarceration) you meet me at the shooting range...
I wouldn't want to see them at a gas station or at Walmart!
Criminals do belong behind bars, I agree with you there. What I dislike is the way gun rights are treated as a tool for punishment. Are gun rights taken away as a public safety measure or as a deterrent for others? Either way, taking away one of our rights for breaking a law is contrary to it being a right and not just a law. Do we disregard the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) if your crime is horrific enough? I could list an example for each right. So why is the 2nd amendment treated that way?
I do not want dangerous criminals possessing guns. But I also don't want dangerous criminals out on the streets, they should be locked up. And I don't want to see the rights recognized by 2nd amendment used as a tool to prevent crime in the name of a better society.
charlesPOSTLEwade
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
It depends on Whom you ask
It Seems most senators and congress people think that are Constitutional Rights are Granted not Guaranteed. I think they are Guaranteed .
It Seems most senators and congress people think that are Constitutional Rights are Granted not Guaranteed. I think they are Guaranteed .
SicSemper
Member
You have to first ask you self what is a criminal; Someone who break the law? Does that mean that the Founding Fathers are criminals?
AZretired
Member
For non-violent felonies your 2nd A. rights should be suspended until you've done your time (jail, parole, probation) then you get them back. For any violent felony and Domestic Violence you lose your right forever!
Sent from my Ally
Sent from my Ally
