Is gun ownership really a right?

[Fat B]

This was the off-shoot of a different topic so instead of highjacking another thread I decided to make it it's own thread. My diatrab stems from the topic of the right of gun ownership being taken away from felons. This is the thread where the discussion started and here is the discussion so far:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/2nd-am...s-v-weaver-et-al-us-dist-ct-west-virgina.html

Just curious, which part irritates you - the outside the home, the felons, or the bodyguards, if you don't mind the [slightly off-topic] question?

I don't mind but my opinion isn't a popular one.

I hear many firearms advocates talk about how defending ourselves is a right, to possess firearms is a right and how the 2nd amendment gives us that right. Then why is that "right" the only one that is taken away for life? No one ever loses their right of freedom of speech for life. No one loses their right to due process, or to a lawyer, or to assemble for life. Now I'm not talking about being incarcerated or on parole or probation. I'm talking about how they are done serving their time on an incident that happened 20 years ago and they are still deprived of their right for something that may or may not have anything to do with firearms.

An 18 year old takes old man Potters car for a joy ride. Old man potter doesn't find it that funny, presses charges and now the 18 year old can't own firearms for the rest of their life. They even give back voting rights after time served.

Now I just made that one up but here is a true story. My friend (when we were 16) had a butterfly knife. I have no idea where he got it from but that knife was dull as all. We used to practice flipping it around because we thought it looked cool. It was so dull that there really wasn't a sharp or a dull side. He gets pulled over with it in the glove box. They find nothing else after the search the car (with his permission because he doesn't think he has anything illegal, we're not drug users or thieves) and they find the old butterfly knife in the glove box. Now they charge him with concealing a deadly weapon, possession of an illegal weapon, etc... He gets the charges significantly reduced but if he was found guilty he wouldn't be able to hunt every year with me.

Most people agree that dangerous people shouldn't have guns. But to put a blanket over everyone convicted of a felony is excessive. On top of that all of the responsible gun owners who proclaims that carrying a firearm is a right guaranteed by the constitution looks the other way when some are deprived of their rights which I said before is the only one that is taken away for life.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" -Thomas Jefferson

If gun ownership and protecting one's self is a right then it's in the same category as freedom of speech.

If gun ownership can be taken away for life, then owning a gun is put into the category of a privilege instead of a right, which is why the whole situation irritates me. Is it a privilege or a right? Even drunk drivers have a timetable on when they can get their driver's license back.

Take the argument a step further. Obviously the guy in this case feared for his life. So he didn't break the law and let other's carry guns and do the protecting. The Federal Government says even that's not o.k. Now that guy has no right to protect himself? What about his employee who worries that his boss will be a target and therefore the employee's life is in danger? Doesn't the employee have a right to protect himself?

Like I said in the beginning, there are plenty of people who disagree with me. But there are also plenty of felonies that have nothing to do with violence which means the argument that society is depriving someone of that right in the name of public safety has gone out the window. And all that leaves is society taking away "rights" as a punishment to the individual which we shouldn't do if we recognize it as a right and not a privilege.

Anyone want to jump in and tell me where I'm wrong?

No. Can't find it.

If someone is too dangerous to be permitted by the state to have firearms, why is he not in prison? Or at least under parental or other competent supervision.

So-called liberals' objections to guns have nothing to do with the law, the Constitution, or common sense. They don't like guns, and they want to outlaw them. They simply don't believe in a free society. Rather, they believe that they should be able to cram their ideas down everyone else's throats. They need a taste of their own medicine.

Fat B - I sort of suspected that was what you meant, and just recently this was in a conversation I was having with someone. In theory, in a perfect world, a person who "done his time" would be out on the streets as a contributing member of society, a citizen, stuck with finding a job, paying taxes, choosing a candidate to vote for, and so on, just like me. Why not, they have 'paid their debt to society.'

Unfortunately, many see any felony as a felony, and many felons return to felony graduate school and learn how to be better felons, and that contaminates the rest of the truly rehabilitated ones. So, while I agree with you in principle, the reality is gun carrying is a privilege just about everywhere now, even for someone like me, felons are in prisons run by private companies and are released due to someone's cost / benefit calculation and not whether they truly 'paid their debt to society' and thus, in the pool of folks with 'felony' in their history, some of those released probably should never be allowed to own / handle a gun (not that that matters, I know).

Maybe some day, perhaps with some report or approval from wardens or probation officers, some former felons would be considered citizens again?

 

[Fat B]

Martha Stewart was convicted of 4 felonies. She can't own or possess a firearm and no one that works for her or takes directions from her can be armed when they are with her. Is she a danger to society? Why does she lose the right to be armed or to defend herself?

When people think of felons they think of murders, rapists and carjackers. My whole point is there are a lot of other felons that are generally peaceful who have a right taken away. I've had this discussion with many NRA members and they proclaim the right to defend themselves and the right to gun ownership and they get very worked up why talking about politicians who want to take that right away. Yet are perfectly fine with taking away that right from felons for life. Or they don't speak up for the rights of others as it is an unpopular position. It's a double standard to say the least.

 

[P&R Fan]

I only want to comment on your saying some people say "the Second Amendment gives us that right". They certainly do say that, and it is untrue. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not GIVE us any rights. In the case of the Second Amendment, or as I prefer to refer to it as, Article Two of the Bill of Rights, it states these rights (pre-existing) shall not be infringed. We do not get these rights from the Constitution. The Constitution protects them.
That may, to some people, be a minor point. It certainly wasn't to the Founding Fathers.
Jim

 

[ckprax]

I do not see the reason for banning felons from gun ownership. There are many non-violent felons that deserve the right to protect themselves. The violent felons should not be on the street.

As we know violent felons are released from prison every day. Do they care about gun laws? No, if they want a gun they will get one, no law has ever prevented a rape or murder. Everyone has a right to keep and bare arms so that we can be as well armed as the felons who will inevitable get weapons and do harm. It is a feel good law that really does more harm than good (I do not believe it keeps felons from possessing weapons).

And yes gun ownership is a right, it is not given to us by the 2A, it is God-given, we were all born with it.

 

[zoso]

I am not "articulate" as others, but i want to voice my gripe and point out an instance in our recent past that the "right", which you think you have, was taken away by the "controlling forces" during a time when that "right" was most needed.

After the hurricane that took a toll on New Orleans, there were videos on youtube about homes being entered and law abiding citizens being "forced" to hand over their firearms to "authorities".

That was a great example of what you "thought" was a "right" got turned into a "privilege" that can be forcefully taken away whenever the "authority" deems necessary.

So now when the bad guy comes along, i have to let him have is way with my family ?????
This irritates me to no end. Can i or can i not defend myself and my family with whatever force necessary to eliminate that danger ? Do i have that right ? or is it all a smoke screen and we are just sheeple believing in a false reality ?

Wake Up...... we have already lost the battle for the freedom to bear arms



zoso

 

[Steve in Vermont]

I've never understood the connection between a Felony conviction (for a non-violent offense) and the restriction of gun possession. If someone has lost their 2nd Amendment rights over a conviction for writing a bad check, how does that make sense? But neither does giving someone a life sentence for a 3rd offense writing bad checks (that has happened under the 3 strikes law). It appears that rather than judge each case on its merits it's simpler to just say: Felony conviction - No gun possession, period. Clear cut and simple. Perhaps not fair, but not enough people care. But what do we expect from a society that suspends kids from school for possession of Tylenol (under the Zero Tolerance Policy)?

 

[vytoland]

we have no "rights", just a bunch of temporary privileges………….with the stroke of a pen……..it all can and does change.

 

[jlrhiner]

I understand there is a process that may be used to reinstate the rights of convicted felons. Even an office of I believe, associated with the Marshals service. I agree that loss of those rights is excessive in some cases.

 

[StatesRightist]

It's a right, end of story. The question is, how it's defended.

 

[Beemer-mark]

I've never understood why felons lose there gun rights or voting rights. And it seems every day it easier and easier to become a felon just by looking the wrong way. If someone was convicted of a crime that involved harming another person I can see a restriction of gun rights imposed by a judge, but simply banning some who used poor judgement, like Martha Steward, is beyond the pale. Most people don't realize it, but Martha broke "regulatory law", not criminal law. When you deal with regulatory bodies, EPA, OHSA, NRC, etc. you have NO rights. No right to a lawyer, no Miranda rights, nothing. The penalty is pretty much whatever the regulatory body wants to impose.

 

[rcnixon]

Attainder of civil rights (voting and firearms rights, as discussed here) are a creature of the mid-twentieth century and, I believe, unconstitutional. I further believe that a constitutional amendment is required to make the process legal. It is interesting that no other rights are attainted, just those two. If we cannot trust someone with a ballot in his hand, what is he doing out of prison?

Russ

 

[jtpur]

Very good points. I do believe that no matter what we might believe, the courts will never agree felons can posses arms.

 

[auburn2]

The reason and logic in the example is sound but the comparison to other rights is not. Constitutional rights are routinely denied to certain segments of the populace. Off the top of my head:

1. 4th amendment rights are universally denied to those who are incarcerated (for both felonies and misdemeaners) during their incarceration

2. The constitutional right to vote has historically been denied to felons and continues to be in some states (although the number is dwindling).

3. Many constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech, are lost by members who enlist in the U.S. armed services (during their enlstment) and others will be forfiet by a service member who is dishonorably discharged.

4. Freedom of speech is denied to children in many contexts.

5. Due process is denied to those with previous convictions of sex crimes.

So when it comes down to it we have a long history of denying constitutional rights to substantial segements of the population. You can argue logically felons should have 2nd amendment rights but it is incorrect to say it is the only example of people being denied.

 

[Dude]

You guys make some good points. However, I don't have a problem denying convicted felons, foreign guests, illegal immigrants, bicyclists, vegetarians, people who bring kids to restaurants, and many other people their rights. The loss of firearms and voting privileges should simply be deterrent to those contemplating criminal activities.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

It's a right, end of story. The question is, how it's defended.

I think that the answer to that question, and a few others, is in the Constitution - in the second amendment.

 

[BugEater]

Crimes

What we need is a third level for crimes and leave the term "felon" to the most egregious. Something like misdemeanor, dereliction, felony. Dereliction would be for serious but non-violent crimes.

 

[AZretired]

The reason and logic in the example is sound but the comparison to other rights is not. Constitutional rights are routinely denied to certain segments of the populace. Off the top of my head:

1. 4th amendment rights are universally denied to those who are incarcerated (for both felonies and misdemeaners) during their incarceration

2. The constitutional right to vote has historically been denied to felons and continues to be in some states (although the number is dwindling).

3. Many constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech, are lost by members who enlist in the U.S. armed services (during their enlstment) and others will be forfiet by a service member who is dishonorably discharged.

4. Freedom of speech is denied to children in many contexts.

5. Due process is denied to those with previous convictions of sex crimes.

So when it comes down to it we have a long history of denying constitutional rights to substantial segements of the population. You can argue logically felons should have 2nd amendment rights but it is incorrect to say it is the only example of people being denied.

Where do I start? First I don't believe 2nd Am. Rights should be lost forever or even just for a non violent felony. That's. The Federal law and not all states revoke the right forever.
Next the 4th Amd. Is based on your right of privacy. Prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Last, I investigated many sex crimes. Previous offenders are always afforde due process!
Sent from my Ally

 

[NE450No2]

I believe Gun Ownership, and everyday Concealed carry is the right of every Law Abiding Citizen.

If you are a Convicted Felon, a Criminal, Then you have violated the Rights of Man. You are Waste of Skin...

I think that ANY burglary, ANY robbery, ANY theft from person, ANY vehicle theft, ANY theft of property over one hundred dollars, ANY stranger to stranger sex crime, ANY treason, should be the DEATH PENALTY...

 

[youseemym&p]

the only people who i believe should NOT own firearms are those with mental disorders that may cause them to use said firearm to harm themselves or other innocent peoples, and FELONS who have used a weapon in a violent crime. i will take a lot of flack for that comment but to me its common sense. someone is a paranoid schizophrenic , lets give them a deadly weapon , and this guy shot 2 people robbed 8 liquor stores and was charged with domestic violence 8 times, lets also give him a gun..........not good ideas in my opinion

 

[CelticSire]

The ancillary question to this debate is: who is going to pay for it? If the law is amended to allow certain classes of convicted felons to retain their 2A right while denying other convicted felons the same right, then a very large database will need to be created and maintained to record exactly which felon is on which side of the law. Records from every criminal court jusrisdiction, to include local, state and Federal, will need to be screened and entered, monitored, and amended as necessary. For example, if a person is convicted of a non-violent felony in one jurisdiction then moves to another jurisdiction, the records will need to be updated to reflect the new address. Then let's say that that person commits another felony, also non-violent. Records updated again. Then the person commits a felony that does require the abrogation of 2A rights. Records updated again. And this database will need to be accessible 24/7 to every law enforcement agency in the US, and has to have a real live person monitoring a telephone to confirm the information, the same as arrest warrants. Think of the number of courts in the US and the amount of cases tried every year, either through plea bargains, trials, deferred adjudications, etc. Then think of the number of law enforcement agencies across the US, from local, county, school district, colleges, hospitals, state police, Federal agencies with arrest powers, etc. Obviously this will necessitate personnel and equipment to set up and maintain. It will of necessity be a governmental function, which means that the cost will be borne by taxpayers. So, which of you is willing to pay more taxes to defray the cost?