Trump pushes Supreme Court against gun rights?

the solicitor general's job is to support existing laws of the us with the courts.

my personal opinion is that the best way to handle this is via a change in federal law so that ten years after a misdemeanor conviction ( or some kind of DV issue) any gun rights that had been restricted would automatically be returned..

The loss of rights is part of the punishment for many crimes. Lobby for change if you want to see it, but I have no sympathy for convicted felons or wife batterers. My efforts are better spent preserving gun rights for those who aren't criminals.

Anyone who's been convicted of a crime, and have served their time, should not be deprived of their rights.

If they're so dangerous, why are they back on the street?

TrickyDick said:

If they're so dangerous, why are they back on the street?

Click to expand...

Overpopulation for one thing. But that would largely be off topic.

TrickyDick said:

Anyone who's been convicted of a crime, and have served their time, should not be deprived of their rights.

Click to expand...

I see the loss of rights as a lifetime punishment, in addition to fines and imprisonment, for certain crimes.

Don't get me wrong, l think a wife beater needs to lose his or her gun rites but the CDV law has criminalized some innocent people. All someone has to do is call the po po, show a red mark , a scratch or sometimes just make a false statement and someone is going for a ride. Once charged.......well you know your guilty until proved innocent with this charge.

If you become a felon you forfeit certain rights. Prisons are penal institutions. Liberals, since the 60's have lobbied that prisoners/criminals can be rehabilitated WASHINGTON – An estimated two-thirds (68 percent) of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of release from prison, and three-quarters (77 percent) were arrested within five years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Now Tricky Dick may think they should have their rights back, however the above excerpt strongly states otherwise. It is not NRA members and responsible law abiding citizens breaking into house and business's to steal guns and wreak havoc , but this those ex convicts that "should not be deprived of their rights" as lil tricky dicky so believes.

Some scary things about the lifetime loss of rights:
If the Govt (state or federal) reclassifies a crime, from misdemeanor to felony, boom, anyone ever found guilty of that crime is now a prohibited person - regardless of when the person was found guilty. States reclassify crimes all the time.

The DV /Lautenburg law (got in a fistfight with your brother, oops that's DV some places) and mental health (you can't ever get better apparently, and things that have nothing at all to do with violence - like bulemia - count the same as a full-fledged raving psychopath).

I am very leery of any mechanism for the permanent loss of rights - and the anti-gun crowd loves to dream up more ways to deny the RKBA to more people...

Wisco said:

The loss of rights is part of the punishment for many crimes. Lobby for change if you want to see it, but I have no sympathy for convicted felons or wife batterers. My efforts are better spent preserving gun rights for those who aren't criminals.

Click to expand...

Normally I would agree with you, but we live in a country where the laws are so tyrannical and overly burdensome that even the most law abiding among us could easily find themselves the object of a felony conviction. And this becomes more and more likely as laws are added to the books each year.

Take Mr. Huang for example, the famous "lobster smuggler" who was charged by the US fish and game people for violating an obscure and unenforced Honduran fisheries law requiring that lobster tails be packed in plastic instead of cardboard. He was convicted of a felony and I believe, don't quote me on this, was sentenced to four years in federal prison. He didn't break any US laws directly, and certainly never intended to break any laws period. Even the Honduran government petitioned to have him released, stating that the law he was prosecuted under wasn't even enforced in their own country and they couldn't even remember why the law had been passed in the first place.

Does someone like that really deserve to lose his gun rights for ten years? There has to be an appeal process for people who pose no danger to the public.

Guys, this case has nothing to with violent felons... thats kinda the whole point.

grampajack said:

we live in a country where the laws are so tyrannical and overly burdensome that even the most law abiding among us could easily find themselves the object of a felony conviction.

Click to expand...

I agree we have too many laws. I partially agree a felony is easy - for certain groups of people: minority, poor, uneducated, etc.

For the average American, there is quite a lot of due process that goes into making a felon. The crime. The investigation. The charge. The plea bargain for a lesser charge or a trial.

I feel empathy for people who make bad choices due to their circumstances, but most people don't make bad enough choices to be felons. Those that do, that's sad, but someone please show me some felons you'd go to bat for to get their voting or gun rights reinstated.

I'd be willing to bet that the average member here at THR doesn't want the average felon voting the way that felon would vote.

Schlegel said:

Guys, this case has nothing to with violent felons... thats kinda the whole point.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with someone losing their rights for ANY felony. It's a huge punishment for serious crimes.

There is a process to get rights restored - pardons, if your governor issues them. Mine doesn't (which is absurd).

That said, mabe more pardons should be issued for reformed ex-cons. Or laws relaxed. Our justice system isn't always right.

Wisco said:

I agree we have too many laws. I partially agree a felony is easy - for certain groups of people: minority, poor, uneducated, etc.

For the average American, there is quite a lot of due process that goes into making a felon. The crime. The investigation. The charge. The plea bargain for a lesser charge or a trial.

I feel empathy for people who make bad choices due to their circumstances, but most people don't make bad enough choices to be felons. Those that do, that's sad, but someone please show me some felons you'd go to bat for to get their voting or gun rights reinstated.

I'd be willing to bet that the average member here at THR doesn't want the average felon voting the way that felon would vote.

Click to expand...

You missed the point entirely. Mr. Huang was quite wealthy I believe, and he certainly didn't make any poor choices. He was an honest businessman who owned a legitimate seafood distributor somewhere in the Northeast. Even a lawyer probably wouldn't have been able to help him in this case. Even Honduran lawyers probably didn't know about that particular law since it was unenforced and had been for many years.

Wisco said:

I have no problem with someone losing their rights for ANY felony. It's a huge punishment for serious crimes.

There is a process to get rights restored - pardons, if your governor issues them. Mine doesn't (which is absurd).

That said, mabe more pardons should be issued for reformed ex-cons. Or laws relaxed. Our justice system isn't always right.

Click to expand...

Mr. Huang was convicted of a felony. He legitimately committed that felony, no doubt about it. Therefore no appeal, and his governor didn't pardon him. You really don't have a problem with him losing his rights? Isn't it bad enough that he had to go to prison and pay the fines? Shouldn't he at least be able to get his rights back now?

Sundancer2004 said:

If you become a felon you forfeit certain rights. Prisons are penal institutions. Liberals, since the 60's have lobbied that prisoners/criminals can be rehabilitated WASHINGTON – An estimated two-thirds (68 percent) of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of release from prison, and three-quarters (77 percent) were arrested within five years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Now Tricky Dick may think they should have their rights back, however the above excerpt strongly states otherwise. It is not NRA members and responsible law abiding citizens breaking into house and business's to steal guns and wreak havoc , but this those ex convicts that "should not be deprived of their rights" as lil tricky dicky so believes.

Click to expand...

No need to be arrogant or condescending.

Rights are suppose to be inalienable, and with a mindset like yours, it proves that people such as yourself have no problem depriving said rights from others, regardless if they already served their time.

Great job on protecting the bill of Rights.

grampajack said:

You missed the point entirely.

Click to expand...

Entirely? None of what I said was applicable to your story? I agreed we have too many laws - many of which are not needed. The Huang case might be overreach.

The story of Huang is a bit deeper than you presented. I'm not willing to read the entire case to make a judgment on his rights.

Being a felon makes you a second class citizen. You can't own firearms, can't vote in some places, getting a decent job is almost impossible, and some places won't even rent to you.

How is someone supposed to start over if they can't even get a decent job? Why bother a crappy job when you can make more money committing crimes?

Before you know it, speeding will become a felony, along with many other victimless crimes. But remember, rights are 'inalienable'.

Sundancer2004
Liberals, since the 60's have lobbied that prisoners/criminals can be rehabilitated...

Click to expand...

Actually, rehabilitation was the objective of the so-called Penssylvania System was was innagurated in 1790. This was modified in the 1820's by the State of New York and it's so-called Auburn System.

Years ago Congress defunded the department of restoration of civil rights. They did the back ground checks to restore rights by vote of Congress.

Trump needs to restore funding of this so those with clean records after getting out of prison have an avenue to get their rights back.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0617.htm

Deaf

Wisco said:

I'd be willing to bet that the average member here at THR doesn't want the average felon voting the way that felon would vote.

Click to expand...

And you would be wrong. I'm an average member. And I know several people that did dumb things when they were young that got convicted of non violent felonies 20+ years ago that did their time and are very productive citizens with not so much as a traffic ticket since (except one who got a ticket for left of center). They're good people. One even is a camp counselor for troubled teens.

I would have no issue letting them house sit for me for a month with all my safe's doors wide open. Because I know, without a doubt that every ounce of gold, silver, every gun and every bullet would be just as I left it. There are good people who did bad things growing up. I was one of them. The difference? I grew up before I got caught. People CAN be rehabilitated. You want to take away their right to vote? Ok. I can (maybe) see that. You want to take away their ability to defend themselves and their families that they didn't even know they would have or ever even thought about having when they did it? Is it the kids fault their dad was dumb once? 15 years before they were born? We shouldn't be so quick to paint with such a broad brush. Lest we find a brush stroke one day that paints us too.

Schlegel wrote:
Guys, this case has nothing to with violent felons... thats kinda the whole point.

Click to expand...

Shhh! Don't interrupt them while they're on their soapboxes.

LA Times is not my first source on understanding of the Constitution or how the appeals process works but they do note:

The decision is in keeping with Justice Department tradition to defend federal laws in court, even if the administration may not be enthused with the statute. Attorney Alan Gura, a gun rights advocate who represents the two men, said he was disappointed but not surprised.

Click to expand...

As I understand it from sorces like Levy's Encyclopedia of the American Constitution and the Volokh Conspircay, the U.S. Solicitor General's job is to support the laws as they currently stand before the Supreme Court against challenges by plaintiffs. It is the Supreme Court justices' job to determine if the plaintiffs' arguments against the law are more in line with the Constitution that the governemnt's defense of existing laws.
Just as a guilty party is entitled to a defense in a criminal trial, a bad law is entitled to a defense in an appeal before the Supreme Court. This is supposed to insure public confidence in the fairness of court decisions.
The Solicitor General does not represent his personal feelings.
The Solicitor General does not represent the current president.
He represents the law as it stands, like it or not.
And if SCOTUS decides in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, the anti-gunners will trumpet to the high heaven that Trump moved the Supreme Court to allow felons to regain their gun rights by appointing a pro-gun justice Neil Gorsuch.

[Aside: Personally I agreed with barring convicted violent felons from owning guns under the 1968 GCA; I knew the violent criminals in my 'hood got guns black market but hoped GCA would be used to prosecute them and get them jailed. When I found the number and kind of nonviolent "felonies" that can result in a ban, I felt betrayed.]

Something like 50% of felons are violent criminals.

Between 15-20% each are property crimes, drug crimes or public order crimes - burglary, drug trafficking, weapons charges, etc.

I'm sympathetic to their circumstances, but not to their consequences.

BigBore44 said:

And you would be wrong.

Click to expand...

So you want felons to vote? They wouldn't likely vote for pro-2A candidates...the felon population being what it is.

Wisco said:

Something like 50% of felons are violent criminals.

Between 15-20% each are property crimes, drug crimes or public order crimes - burglary, drug trafficking, weapons charges, etc.

I'm sympathetic to their circumstances, but not to their consequences.



So you want felons to vote? They wouldn't likely vote for pro-2A candidates...the felon population being what it is.

Click to expand...

Like the ones I described? Why wouldn't they vote pro-2A? They accept their punishment and don't begrudge me for owning guns. You're painting with that broad brush again. Not every felon is like some of the ones I know. But not every felon is like the ones you've stereotyped.

My brother's father in law is a felon. Felony hit and run and DUI. Got caught. Did 15 on paper and 9 in. That was 30 years ago. Hasn't had a drop to drink since. Works 6 days a week as a carpenter/contractor and church twice on Sunday. He's a good man. An honest man. He's definitely a conservative. Can't stand Hillary, Chucky, or Pelosi. He's also pro-2A. When we shoot at my brothers house, if he's there, he comes out with us. Does he shoot? I've never seen it. But we certainly don't shame him away from family time. My brother is a cop and DTF. Dad retired from a large department. Brother's friends of course are cops and DTF. And we all hang out together. They all know he's a felon. And he knows they know. But if you showed up, YOU'd never know it.

Wisco said:

So you want felons to vote? They wouldn't likely vote for pro-2A candidates...the felon population being what it is.

Click to expand...

Felons not incarcerated or on parole/probation can vote in 40 states.

Why wouldn't non violent ex felons want to protect their family?