Trump pushes Supreme Court against gun rights?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I realize that the examples I've given are not what one would call "typical". But they are real examples of real people. People who made bad choices. People who did their time. People who changed their lives.

We criticize those who put gun owners or hunters in the same groups as murderers and poachers. Yet some of us feel it's ok to do that to others who took a different path than we did for whatever the reason. Not every white person is racist. Not every Muslim is a terrorist. Not every gun owner is a crazed right winger. Not every felon chooses to continue on that destructive path.

Maybe I am on a soapbox. But I know first hand how lucky I am that a deputy on a county road turned around and went the other way one night when I was 19. If he would have stopped us, I might still be in prison. Now I'm 35. Not so much as a speeding ticket on my record. People can change.

Carl N. Brown said it very well in his [Aside].
 
I would add to my previous statement that the situation regarding felons and firearms isn't totally separate from the situation regarding the mentally ill and firearms ownership. Just like we don't want legitimate criminals having weapons, we also don't want the legitimately mentally ill having them either.

However, this is a highly precarious proposition because enforcement requires allowing the government to define who is a criminal and who is mentally ill, and just like mental illness is being used a pretext to strip people of their rights, so too can the criminal justice system be used in the exact same manner, and taking away the ability to appeal an unjust curtailment of one's rights is inviting the government to wield the legal code as a weapon against the liberty of the "proletariat." When significant portions of the population begin to fall into these categories we know something is up. It's a very slippery slope because the definitions of "felon" and "mental illness" get broader every year. Things that any sane person wouldn't even regard as a crime (like packing lobster tails in cardboard boxes) are now felonies, and what used to be described as a funk is now diagnosed as major clinical bipolar depression.

If you want to know the truth of the matter, anyone on this forum, indeed anyone in this country, no matter how sane and law abiding, could be convicted of a felony or mentally adjudicated. It's only a matter of someone taking the time to nail you, or just being unlucky (as in the case of Mr. Huang). This is a serious problem. Historically speaking, it's a tried and proven method used by oppressive governments to suppress dissent and take away the rights of anyone who they perceive as a threat. Much of Eastern Europe operated this way under the Iron Curtain. Anyone who was inconvenient could be arrested at any time on trumped up charges and have their rights and freedoms curtailed. The idea is to turn everyone into criminals with an impossible legal code, then selectively enforce it. The result is state sponsored criminality run amok, juxtaposed with brutal punishment for the smallest of offenses for anyone who steps outside the line.

Additionally, this technique also requires that the legal code be designed to force people into criminal behavior. You end up with conflicting, mutually exclusive laws, where following one law requires breaking another. Or the laws are simply so restrictive that you have to bend the rules in order just to get by. North Korea is a prime example of that. They allow certain commercial activities in order to keep people from starving, but the fact remains that anyone could be arrested at any time for operating a for profit business. They run little produce stands in rural markets and everyone participates out of necessity, but any targeted individual can be picked up at any time, charged, then sent off to prison.

We here in the US are not too far off from having such a system, and if something major doesn't change we will eventually get there, where the law is so burdensome it must necessarily be broken just to get by. The environmental regulations alone are about to put farming and industry into bankruptcy, and will eventually make even a home garden or small business virtually impossible to run profitably while following every regulation on the books. We are probably to that point already and just don't fully realize it yet. I would imagine the EPA could shut down every family farm, garden, and small business in the country under our current laws if they just had the manpower to do it.

The point here though is that taking away someone's ability to appeal to have their rights restored is a major step in that direction. In fact, I would say it's the major obstacle currently in the way of using our legal system to systematically take away the rights of honest people who have done nothing wrong, other than having fallen into the legal quicksand and having technically broken the law. If we remove this right to appeal, it's kind of like giving the go ahead to start using the legal system to persecute political enemies and remove rights that are inconvenient to the state.
 
Last edited:
I would add to my previous statement that the situation regarding felons and firearms isn't totally separate from the situation regarding the mentally ill and firearms ownership. Just like we don't want legitimate criminals having weapons, we also don't want the legitimately mentally ill having them either.

However, this is a highly precarious proposition because enforcement requires allowing the government to define who is a criminal and who is mentally ill. When significant portions of the population begin to fall into these categories we know something is up. It's a very slippery slope because the definitions of "felon" and "mental illness" get broader every year. Things that any sane person wouldn't even regard as a crime (like packing lobster tails in cardboard boxes) are now felonies, and what used to be described as a funk is now diagnosed as major clinical bipolar depression.

If you want to know the truth of the matter, anyone on this forum, indeed anyone in this country, no matter how sane and law abiding, could be convicted of a felony or mentally adjudicated. It's only a matter of someone taking the time to nail you, or just being unlucky (as in the case of Mr. Huang). This is a serious problem. Historically speaking, it's a tried and proven method used by oppressive governments to suppress dissent and take away the rights of anyone who they perceive as a threat. Much of Eastern Europe operated this way under the Iron Curtain. Anyone who was inconvenient could be arrested at any time on trumped up charges and have their rights and freedoms curtailed. The idea is to turn everyone into criminals with an impossible legal code, then selectively enforce it. The result is state sponsored criminality run amok, juxtaposed with brutal punishment for the smallest of offenses for anyone who steps outside the line.

Additionally, this technique also requires that the legal code be designed to force people into criminal behavior. You end up with conflicting, mutually exclusive laws, where following one law requires breaking another. Or the laws are simply so restrictive that you have to bend the rules in order just to get by. North Korea is a prime example of that. They allow certain commercial activities in order to keep people from starving, but the fact remains that anyone could be arrested at any time for operating a for profit business. They run little produce stands in rural markets and everyone participates out of necessity, but any targeted individual can be picked up at any time, charged, then sent off to prison.

We here in the US are not too far off from having such a system, and if something major doesn't change we will eventually get there, where the law is so burdensome it must necessarily be broken just to get by. The environmental regulations alone are about to put farming and industry into bankruptcy, and will eventually make even a home garden or small business virtually impossible to run profitably while following every regulation on the books. We are probably to that point already and just don't fully realize it yet. I would imagine the EPA could shut down every family farm, garden, and small business in the country under our current laws if they just had the manpower to do it.

The point here though is that taking away someone's ability to appeal to have their rights restored is a major step in that direction. In fact, I would say it's the major obstacle currently in the way of using our legal system to systematically take away the rights of honest people who have done nothing wrong, other than having fallen into the legal quicksand and having technically broken the law. If we remove this right to appeal, it's kind of like giving the go ahead to start using the legal system to persecute political enemies and remove rights that are inconvenient to the state.

You're 100% correct about the mentally ill. I worked 8 years in a crisis stabilization facility. Every single person in the United States has a mental disorder. If you've ever been sad or mad, and it can be documented, you can be diagnosed. All it takes is a phone call and a 3rd party affidavit to be dragged out of your house (sometimes days later) and evaluated. And if you buck up after being dragged out of your house or while you're in, they can add anger issues, oppositional defiance disorder, anxiety, and a whole host of other disorders to your diagnosis. Luckily we had a good doc that understood people and wouldn't add things like that without just cause.
 
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.

You do know many do not fall under those categories right? You can be a convicted felon for downloading music, if an 18 year old makes that mistake they should still be allowed to protect their wife and children 10 years later. If an angry ex girlfriend wants to get even she can easily claim she was hit and without a mark on her an innocent man can go through a world of pain and suffering. Its very easy to write it off if you assume everyone is a scum bag, because there's no WAY the government would make a mistake...
 
IMO, with regards to convicted felons....

The mentally ill issue is so variable that there cannot be a blanket law or case to say "---------" with absolution. Every case and individual is different. It is a slippery slope but I feel most here would agree that the severely mentally imbalanced people should not have access to firearms.

The so-called "victimless" criminals and white collar criminals should have an appeals process where they can reapply for reinstatement of lost rights after X years (5?). The appeal should consider the nature of the original crime and behavior after completion of the sentence including reparation, stability and contrition. Not every felon should lose their rights no matter what. It is too broad of a statement that puts a bad check writer in the same class as a murderer. Hardly the same thing.

The violent, repeat criminals should lose their rights forever. No appeal process. No pardons. No rights. They gave up their rights voluntarily when they chose the path that landed them in jail. They threw up their middle finger to society when they decided that the $150 the shop owner had in his register was worth more than his right to vote or own a gun. His choice. His actions. He gave up his rights, they weren't taken away. Once released, he can protect himself with a baseball bat because he chose to commit a violent felony. His choice.

The first time violent felon (young, stupid, wrong place, wrong time, etc.) should get a chance to appeal his loss of rights if the violence did not include a firearm and did not include any bodily harm from any other weapon. Carrying a 2" knife should not mean automatic loss of rights but if he used that 2" blade to stab, slash or cut up anybody then those actions mean he cannot be trusted. If a first time offended has, in his possession, a gun whether he used it or not, then he should lose his appeal process and have 5 years MANDATORY jail time added to his sentence. Commit a felony while in possession of a firearm and you lose all your rights and get a minimum 5 years. If the judge feels that the crime deserves 1 year of jail time (first offense) then it's 1 year plus 5 years. If you choose to do the crime with a gun then you lose your rights. Your choice.

For those who say that once a person serves his sentence then he should have all his rights restored or just stay in jail? Well, his sentence includes loss of those rights so he hasn't served his sentence until he dies. If he wants to stay in jail then he can choose to go back by continuing his illegal ways. He'll go back because he deserves to. His choice. He can protect his family with his baseball bat if he's at home but he can't if he's locked up. If he wants to protect his family with a legal gun then don't decide to be a violent felon. Don't blame society, mommy, daddy or peer pressure. Look in the mirror. When you decide to commit the crime, be prepared to do the time and accept the punishment that comes with it. Violent, repeat felons choose to give up their rights. They aren't taken from them.
 
If they're so dangerous, why are they back on the street?

Because they cost more money to keep locked up than let go.

Also everyone deserves a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th... Chance.

How many times have you read or heard "....had been previously convicted....." when in reference to someone that has committed a crime?
 
It's hard to defend being tough on crime with severe, lifelong punishments when it's so clearly a very personal issue for some here.
 
Would a better stance be reclassifying some crimes to non felonies?

I want broad gun ownership. I also want severe consequences to those tho harm others physically or financially.

I'm erring on the side of severe punishment, not being anti-2A for the sake of denying a right.
 
1. the offenses that I referenced in the op were NON VIOLENT, and did not result in a felony, only that they "could" have faced one or more years in prison. So any plea deals are off the table for your gun rights, that should make anyone shudder at the thought.

2. The Government's position that it's to time consuming to allow people to have their rights in place is beyond the pale. If it was in the name of public safety, I'd still call bs, but they are not even trying that!

3. Again folks, this has NOTHING to do with felons. I feel for those who made mistakes, but this thread is not for that, this is for NON VIOLENT misdemeanor resulting in loss of gun rights. The only criteria used was that the offense could have brought more than 1 year, but not that it did!

4. I judge Alan Gura to be one of the best supporters of the 2a, and a rational person. That he is representing both parties that were affected I'm comforted that this is legitimate.
 
It's hard to defend being tough on crime with severe, lifelong punishments when it's so clearly a very personal issue for some here.

It's common sense for me.

If a felon is a danger, do your job and lock them up.
Dont release a dangerous felon and disregard the contitution over a dollar and a doughnut.
That tells me someone isnt doing their job, and you and I (taxpayers) are footing the bill.
Either the debt to society is paid or it isn't.


Either we are releasing dangerous criminals back on the street, or we are denying citizens their constitutional rights.

Pick your poison.
Either way, it needs to be addressed.

Someone clearly isnt doing their job.
 
The loss of gun rights shouldn't be a federal law. It's one of those one size fits all situations that the fed has no business getting involved in. People are perfectly able to decide for themselves thru their state lawmakers what controls they want regarding firearms. If a state decides that it wants to give those rights back to a person who has served their time then they should be able to do that. A judge can look at the individual with their record and decide if they should have their rights back.

This really isn't that complicated. States rights need to be stressed once again. This isn't good for anyone. I'm really not seeing anything positive coming out of this adm regarding gun rights. I think it was a lot of campaign BS. The NRA took the hook hard.
 
Last edited:
I would submit that the law banning criminals from owning firearms is in and of itself completely useless as a means of protecting the public, and serves only as a danger to the rights of people such as Mr. Huang who were unjustly dealt with by our broken criminal justice system.

In the first place, the law has no teeth. If a felon wants a firearm, by golly he's going to get one, and there's nothing the law can do to prevent him from that. Gun control simply doesn't work in any regard, leastwise this one. If someone can't be trusted with a firearm, then they should never be released from prison in the first place.

One thing I would like to see done is to dispense with prisons altogether. Violent crimes like murder, attempted murder, rape, and child molestation should be an automatic death penalty. Lesser crimes should be sentenced to a penal colony that would operate like any other city, except that its residents would be mostly convicted criminals who committed property crimes, theft, non lethal assaults, etc. They would work and pay taxes and would be released with all their rights fully restored after a specified time period, providing that they didn't commit anymore crimes while living in the penal colony. I think the public in general is tired of footing the bill for prisoners, and we're certainly tired of murderers, rapists, and child molesters being released only to commit the same crimes over and over again.
 
They'd probably vote Democrat. Fine with me if things stay the way it is for them.
 
We can chase around Robbin Rood's barn forever about how we think the law should be, but the fact of the matter is that the headline for this thread is:

Trump pushes Supreme Court against gun rights?

Which ilbob and Carl N. Brown as well as others have explained, does not necessarily represent the opinion of the current administration.

The answer to the question in the headline is, "NO."
 
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.
Yes, I have no sympathy for convicted felons or wife abusers. However, in the case where the offense was really non-violent (like Martha Stewart fraud), I can not usefulness of an unlimited loss of such rights. In fact, I think we would have fewer repeat offenders if we had a straight forward method for rights to be returned, maybe 5 years without any offenses.
If we remove the right of self defense, does that mean they have a "special relationship" with the government and the government is responsible for their safety?
 
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.
Yep. It's not quite so black & white as some seem to think. I know a guy who has gone round and round with a psychotic ex-girlfriend just because she accused him of something. Not everyone accused of domestic violence is a bona fide "wife beater".
 
Around here there is a push to allow ex-cons the right to vote. I haven't read the US Constitution in a couple of years but if memory serves there is no "RIGHT" to vote enumerated. There are amendments against discriminating, age and gender on who gets to vote.
My point and not very humble opinion; if you can vote then you can own a firearm.
 
One of my closest friends is a felon.
He made a mistake 2 decades ago (non violent, white collar property crime) and paid his debt.

Since then, he has become a father, husband, business owner, doesn't drink or do drugs, is honest beyond compare and is an extremely productive member of society.
The man is exemplary.
Hasnt had so much as a speeding ticket in 20 years.
He's the type of person we all want as a friend and neighbor.

He won't come inside my home because I own firearms. I also have friends that are LEO and he doesnt want to cause any issues, so he just doesn't come inside.

It's a disgusting misappropriation of a draconian, unconstitutuonal law, used to strip rights from Americans.

Inalienable rights. Shall not be infringed.
These words are not suggestions, they are the foundation of freedom.
 
More people will loose their 2nd Amendment Rights as a result of Trump's A.G. pick's mandating the removal of federal prosecutors discretionary powers, including those charged (or not) with mala prohibita "crimes." This will also bolster the U.S. incarcerated 2.4 million, already the highest in the world.
 
More people will loose their 2nd Amendment Rights as a result of Trump's A.G. pick's mandating the removal of federal prosecutors discretionary powers, including those charged (or not) with mala prohibita "crimes." This will also bolster the U.S. incarcerated 2.4 million, already the highest in the world.

That's where we're headed. Just don't get arrested is all I can say.
 
More people will loose their 2nd Amendment Rights as a result of Trump's A.G. pick's mandating the removal of federal prosecutors discretionary powers, including those charged (or not) with mala prohibita "crimes." This will also bolster the U.S. incarcerated 2.4 million, already the highest in the world.

That is a sobering reality for sure. 700 out of every 100k people in the US are actually incarcerated. This doesn't even count juvenile detention centers, military brigs, or Indian reservations. It also doesn't account for the scores of people who are convicted of crimes but never go to prison, or the scores of people out on bail, in halfway houses, etc. At what point do we become concerned?

2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264.jpg
 
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.

LOL, you mean like people who keep an unlicensed pistol in the car, right? Clearly, we gun rights "adherents" don't even deserve a pro gun president at this point, so it should surprise no one when we fail to select, or elect, one.

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

But of course we know that maintaining the Constitution is more important than our personal feelings, right? Or people behaving the way we want? (Or voting the way we want)

I'd love to see those Westboro Church nutters locked up myself, or at least prevented from protesting at funerals...but I would not change the law to allow stopping them if it would weaken "everyone's" First Amendment rights. There's a bigger picture here.

If a criminal pays their debt to society, IMO they should get their rights to vote and own a firearm back, just like they get their liberty back. Do I 'like' that idea? Not particularly but my feelings on the matter arent important...upholding the Constitution...and it's protections for all of us, is.
 
="9MMare, post: 10561157, member: 104162"]If a criminal pays their debt to society, IMO they should get their right to vote and own a firearm back, just like they get their freedom back.
Losing his rights is part of paying for his debt to society. It is part of his sentence. It is meant to deter, not punish. Obviously, most felons don't care if they lose their rights because they choose to break the law. Why is this so hard to understand? Yes, not all felonies are the same in severity but changing the existing law is the only way to change this. We should advocate an appeal process for the rights to be returned in certain cases. As it stands, if you commit a felony, you lose your rights.... it's part of your sentence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top