Convicted felons owning guns

[Arkansas Paul]

You say freedom carries a price.
I say being a freaking criminal carries a price. Or it's supposed to. Not anymore though.
And you're right toxicity, we don't have to trust someone just because they've not committed a crime. I agree with you there. However, felons have already PROVEN they cannot be trusted. For better or worse, decisions you make come with consequences.
There is also validity to the points made that criminals can find guns whether it's legal or not. That doesn't mean we should make it legal though.
The older I get, the less patience I have for criminals.

 

[rm23]

Thanks rm23!
14thamd. sec1. Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" no way to argue with this, give them their guns back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you crazy? You highlight the sentence that is completely irrelevant to your argument. I understand that you disagree with this law, but to completely ignore something that is so clearly written, shows me that you cannot be objective about this and there is no point in continuing this debate. I feel like I'm arguing with a liberal about 'shall not be infringed.'

 

[toxicity]

It is clear that my right to own a firearm is protected under the law, so should the formerly punished and now returned to society individuals rights be equally protected.yea, that sentance doesn't at all in any way apply to everyone when it says "any person", That obviously is a reference to pet goldfish, so I guess you would be right.

 

[divemedic]

Oh - look! The Florida Board of Executive Clemency appears to be doing business. Next objection?

The Florida board can do as they please. That doesn't change the fact that under FEDERAL law, a convicted felon cannot possess a firearm or ammunition.


“In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the US Supreme Court today (Dec. 11) ruled unanimously in United States v. Thomas Lamar Bean that the federal ‘relief from disability’ guns-for-felons program, which was operated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) until Congress defunded it in 1992, cannot be revived by federal judges. The court also refused any comment on Bean’s claim that he had a Second Amendment right to get his guns back.

You won't listen to reason and you ignore evidence. There is no way to have an intelligent discussion when the other party just keeps repeating "Nuh uh"

This thread is going nowhere. I'm out.

 

[Art Eatman]

What appears to be fallacious thinking is the idea that the end of a prison sentence or of a probationary period ends the loss of rights for a felon. What has been built into our system since 1792 is that some rights, once lost, can never be regained--even after the jail time is over with.

The only way to change that is via legislative action.

One thing for sure: The possibility of losing certain civil rights is a powerful incentive to not become a felon--for those who spend at least a modicum of time in rational thought.

 

[gym]

Hi Officers Wife,
Once that 16 year old killed another human, he lost his rights. Over done, he dosen't get them back. He screwed up forever. He took a life. He's done, he's alive the person he killed obviouslly isn't. What don't you understand. You kill someone you lose your rights, small price to pay. That's the law, so it is written, don't like it, Go run for office and change it. He's alive, his victim is not. You want him to get another crack at it, wow.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

But gym, he was just misunderstood. After all, he was spanked as a child, and the prom queen wouldn't go out with him, and the kids made fun of him in school, and a thousand other reasons bleeding heart morons give to excuse criminal activity.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...You won't listen to reason and you ignore evidence....

What reason and what evidence? And because some of us disagree with you? The fact is that some folks think it's okay that convicted felons lose some civil rights. And you haven't been able to convince some of us otherwise. It was your job to convince those who disagree with you, and the fact that you've been unable to do so is not the fault of the people who disagree with you.

 

[toxicity]

10th amd. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." this on top of the 14th should be final. The BATFE is not a legal institution and thusly have avoided pressing any cases where legal precidence may be set in their opposition. Federal law does not trump state law and state law being the higher of the two always answers to the constitution and the people, not the other way around. This is fact and real and not up for any kind of debate for a real patriot. You can debate questions, not facts.

 

[shockwave]

The Florida board can do as they please. That doesn't change the fact that under FEDERAL law, a convicted felon cannot possess a firearm or ammunition.

You are mistaken. Why are you mistaken? This is very simple material.

It is unlawful for:

* any convicted felon to have in his or her possession any firearm or to carry a concealed weapon unless his civil rights have been restored.

 

[toxicity]

The power to remove that right from you is not given to the feds by the constitution. Next!

 

[toxicity]

Remember, just because it has been passed into law does not make it legal, nor does that mean that we have to abide by such illegalism. The supreme law of the land is the constitution, not an opinnion of what or how something should be. This is not a democracy, where the mindless mob rules yet it seems to be that through this very mantality you allow this BS> go find a democracy to spout that crap in, as for me I will love the rule of law provided to us by our beloved constitution and will defend it from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I have been all over this tiny planet and we are looking more and more like the 3rd. world parts of it everyday.

 

[Frank Ettin]

10th amd. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." this on top of the 14th should be final. The BATFE is not a legal institution and thusly have avoided pressing any cases where legal precidence may be set in their opposition. Federal law does not trump state law and state law being the higher of the two always answers to the constitution and the people, not the other way around.......

And what is that supposed to mean -- other than that you don't understand the law or the Constitution? According to the Constitution, federal law trumps state law:

"...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...."(Article VI)

As far as the BATF not being legal, let us know when you get a court to buy that. A court's opinion of the law, what is or is not constitutional and what is or is not legal trumps yours. The opinions of courts on such matters affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

[rm23]

Remember, just because it has been passed into law does not make it legal, nor does that mean that we have to abide by such illegalism. The supreme law of the land is the constitution, not an opinnion of what or how something should be. This is not a democracy, where the mindless mob rules yet it seems to be that through this very mantality you allow this BS> go find a democracy to spout that crap in, as for me I will love the rule of law provided to us by our beloved constitution and will defend it from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I have been all over this tiny planet and we are looking more and more like the 3rd. world parts of it everyday.

That guy doesn't know how to read. I'm giving up.

P.S. - lol @ the underlined part

 

[toxicity]

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...."(Article VI)
This is exactly what I have been saying. "which shall be made in pursuance thereof;" State law carries more power but not beyond the constitution and must answer to the constitution and federal laws that are constitutionaly sound, always. Laws that ignore this are illegal, all of them, and the organizations that try to enforce them at force of arms have just made themselves enimies of the constitution.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The power to remove that right from you is not given to the feds by the constitution...

Actually it is, as has been explained, but which you don't seem to understand.

"...nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." (5th Amendment to the United States Constitution)

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." (14th Amendment to the United States Constitution)

Therefore, under the Constitution, as long as due process is satisfied, one may be deprived of his liberties.

The Constitution also provides:

"Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,..." (Article III)

So the Founding Fathers delegated to the federal courts the responsibility to decide disputes arising under the Constitution (not you).

....State law carries more power but not beyond the constitution and must answer to the constitution and federal laws that are constitutionaly sound, always. Laws that ignore this are illegal, all of them, and the organizations that try to enforce them at force of arms have just made themselves enimies of the constitution.

Enjoy your life in your alternate reality.

 

[toxicity]

Passing a federal law that says everyone named Fred can be run over with a car on the first friday of every month does not mean it is legal to do so under our constitution.

 

[toxicity]

Bash me all you like, I have to go!

 

[Frank Ettin]

Passing a federal law that says everyone named Fred can be run over with a car on the first friday of every month does not mean it is legal to do so under our constitution.

Of course not. Such a law would be vulnerable to challenge as a bill of attainder, prohibited under Article I, Section 9. (It would also arguably violate the 5th Amendment prohibition of depriving someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law.)

 

[Frank Ettin]

Bash me all you like, I have to go!

Fine with me.

 

[JW2]

I'm down with it as long as they were involved in a non-violent crime.

 

[Gungnir]

You kill someone you lose your rights, small price to pay.

Really, so you support that if it's a self defense shooting too I assume (you didn't qualify)? That comment would not be out of place coming from Sarah Brady or Paul Helmke.

The thing that confuses me by those supporting no guns for convicted felons is this bear with me on the discussion

So I believe that we all agree that if all guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

I also believe that we all agree that current gun regulations do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining and using guns to commit crimes.

So if we look at convicted felons, the only group of those that are really impacted by a blanket ban on owning firearms are those who now want to follow the law. Those that don't will obtain a firearm and likely use it in the commission of their next crime. So we're punishing those who have decided that they do not want to commit further crimes. Is this rational...?

On one hand we say that gun regulation doesn't achieve the goal of preventing criminals committing crimes with guns, and on the other some are saying that convicts should be prevented from owning guns because it will achieve...? What exactly...? This is my point of confusion.

Now if we also look at the use of felonies by Federal, State and local government it's even more stupid. Use the wrong pesticide, it's a felony (FDA, USDA or Enviroment laws), drive through the wrong area with a gun in your possession, it's a felony (school zones), throw a stone at a dog, and accidentally break a post office window, it's a felony (vandalism of federal property), taking certain foodstuffs interstate, it's a felony (various state laws USDA and FDA regs), or giving someone your medication who has the same condition you have, it's a felony (FDA regs, maybe practicing medicine without a license), ever not RTS some mail not addressed to you, it's a felony (US Postal laws), bought OTC meds in Canada, that are prescription only in the US and brought them back, it's a felony (various laws and FDA regs), getting belligerent with a parking attendant, it's a felony (anti-terror laws). The list goes on and on of stupid things that can be prosecuted as a felony, including some regulations that are now prosecuted in court in preference to a spot fine, and it's only by luck or the grace of the police, or DA that they're not always prosecuted. I seriously recommend reading "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent Harvey A. Silverglate 2009" it's an eye opener.

Fact is I'd state with complete confidence that everyone here has committed at least one felony in the past year if not more than one, you might not know what it is, I don't know what it is either, but you will have, Ignorantia juris non excusat.

 

[gym]

Dude give it up, you are now just blowing smoke. You know exactlly what some of us are saying. No guns for convicted violent offenders. You shoot an innocent person you don't get a gun. Maybe you get the Chair, but no gun. Go argue Constitutional law after you get your law degree and the Superemes give you permission to bring a case before them. You are pretty much wasting your time saying the same thing over and over trying to find clever ways to make a point that has been interpreted by scholars over the last 50 or more years.

 

[shockwave]

I also believe that we all agree that current gun regulations do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining and using guns to commit crimes.

No I don't agree with that. You've begged that question so everything that follows is strawman.

If you are a convicted felon and get pulled over for a traffic stop and an officer finds a gun on you or in your car you go to jail. If you are a convicted felon you will have a hard time purchasing a firearm legally, so you will be restricted to the black market, which means you will have to commit a crime in order to obtain a weapon. That means that the person who sold it to you can rat you out, as it were. And the penalties for circumventing the law in this way mean that getting caught is a trip back to lockup. It's a free country, so this is about the best we can do.

So we're punishing those who have decided that they do not want to commit further crimes.

I don't care what "they" want or do not want. "They" raped, murdered, robbed, stole, car-jacked, whatever. I don't give a damn about their desire to obtain firearms. If they want guns again, they can petition to have their rights restored and if they pass that hurdle, fine. If they can't, fine.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Ughh]

I would have no problem with past NON-VIOLENT criminals owning a firearm.

Not yes....Always
Not No.....never
But Sometimes....Depending on nature of the crime

Agreed