Judges ask all sorts of questions of counsel during oral arguments. They ask because they want to see how counsel responds, not to give hints about their own conclusions.mack said:
For those who think felons should never have guns...
- Thread starter ArmedBear
- Start date
- Status
rainbowbob
Member
This. There is no compelling interest of the state.
Can those here who support using restrictions of 2A rights provide a compelling interest - other than as a form of further punishment?
Nope, but it does give one insight into some of their thoughts. Of course many judges recognize the idiocy of some laws, but have to uphold the law as written unless the law itself is at issue, interesting reading in some judge's opinions in that vein.
Of course I remember 20 or so years ago and being told by some fellow gun owners that people pushing shall issue CCW laws were swimming against the stream and only going to cause problems - they should just sit down and shut up. Same with the USSC ruling on the second amendment as an individual right. Same with defending those EBR - nobody really needs one and it makes the rest of us legitimate gun owners and hunters look bad. Of course today we hear the same thing about those open carriers - causing trouble for good and responsible gun owners. And of course forget about Vermont carry are you crazy - as evidently they must be in AK and AZ.
So if CA legalizes pot - will all those felons convicted of possessing pot - still be barred for life from their RKBA? Well they should have known it was illegal - even though in CA it may soon not be considered a crime at all, let alone a serious crime - unlike all those felons who could own guns legally until 1968 but retroactively lost that right. Kind of like all those DV misdemeanants who lost their RKBA retroactively after Lautenberg passed - though that could be litigated again as the ruling that supported it - essentially stated that individuals so deprived were not deprived of an individual right - Heller and hopefully now McDonald will change that.
Was the thief on Calvary that Christ said would be in paradise with him that day, guilty of a felony? I hope not - I'd hate to think a felon got into paradise. I only want pure, sinless, morally perfect people in heaven - course it would be empty of people in that case - but the law is the law. Hate to think Jesus was a scofflaw - but he did say that the law was made for man and not man for the law; then there was that follower of his that said that the law is dead. Hmmmm, sounds pretty dodgy to me. Hey was that Jesus guy a felon, sure they "say" he was innocent. Ahah, I knew it, what a bunch of lousy criminals. And the prodigal son - let’s not even go there. (but enough of my poor attempt at humor)
If we are to error let us error on the side of freedom, if someone completes their sentence and probation or parole (which could cover most of the time frame of the highest rates of recidivism) then unless it is applied as a specific part of their specific sentence in their particular case - then let all rights be restored.
Of course I remember 20 or so years ago and being told by some fellow gun owners that people pushing shall issue CCW laws were swimming against the stream and only going to cause problems - they should just sit down and shut up. Same with the USSC ruling on the second amendment as an individual right. Same with defending those EBR - nobody really needs one and it makes the rest of us legitimate gun owners and hunters look bad. Of course today we hear the same thing about those open carriers - causing trouble for good and responsible gun owners. And of course forget about Vermont carry are you crazy - as evidently they must be in AK and AZ.
So if CA legalizes pot - will all those felons convicted of possessing pot - still be barred for life from their RKBA? Well they should have known it was illegal - even though in CA it may soon not be considered a crime at all, let alone a serious crime - unlike all those felons who could own guns legally until 1968 but retroactively lost that right. Kind of like all those DV misdemeanants who lost their RKBA retroactively after Lautenberg passed - though that could be litigated again as the ruling that supported it - essentially stated that individuals so deprived were not deprived of an individual right - Heller and hopefully now McDonald will change that.
Was the thief on Calvary that Christ said would be in paradise with him that day, guilty of a felony? I hope not - I'd hate to think a felon got into paradise. I only want pure, sinless, morally perfect people in heaven - course it would be empty of people in that case - but the law is the law. Hate to think Jesus was a scofflaw - but he did say that the law was made for man and not man for the law; then there was that follower of his that said that the law is dead. Hmmmm, sounds pretty dodgy to me. Hey was that Jesus guy a felon, sure they "say" he was innocent. Ahah, I knew it, what a bunch of lousy criminals. And the prodigal son - let’s not even go there. (but enough of my poor attempt at humor)
If we are to error let us error on the side of freedom, if someone completes their sentence and probation or parole (which could cover most of the time frame of the highest rates of recidivism) then unless it is applied as a specific part of their specific sentence in their particular case - then let all rights be restored.
rainbowbob
Member
Amen brother. Of course that position apparently makes us "pro criminal". And all that swimming upstream could get us wet and may tire us out and probably shouldn't be attempted.
That will ultimately be up to government to argue and the courts to decide. I have no idea how government will frame its arguments, but at this point I'm not going to bet against government being able to succeed.rainbowbob said:
Yes, because they were still convicted of an act that was a felony when they committed it. That's the way it is.mack said:
In addition, users of marijuana will still be prohibited persons because marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance, and thus illegal under federal law.
In any case, the law morphs and evolves. Things that were once felonies in some places (e. g., miscegenation, homosexual acts between consenting adults, sale of contraceptive to unmarried persons, abortion, etc.) are no longer crimes, at least in most of those places (and even when the crime may technically be on the books, prosecution would be unlikely to succeed under various court decisions in the last 75 years).
We'll just have to see what happens to the prohibited persons provision of the GCA.
Attempt all you want. That is unquestionably your right. The matter will not be decided here, in any case. Any change will come through the legislative or the judicial process, so that's where you need to be trying to change things.rainbowbob said:
Last edited:
rainbowbob
Member
That was Mack - not me.
Oops, sorry. I'll fix it if I can.
ETA, I fixed it.
ETA, I fixed it.
Freedom is good. I like freedom. But I never forget that freedom has a dark side: the freedom to fail, to mess up and suffer the consequences
Very true. Took some liberties to append.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
consequences?! heretic!!! next you'll be talking about responsibility! is nothing sacred anymore?
BHP FAN
Member
Rondog nailed it,and said it better than I could:
''Agreed. The word "felony" is attached to too damn many piddly little meaningless "crimes", which destroy the rights of good people that made some little mistake. While real criminals get out of jail and then go on one form or another of public assistance, and take jobs "under the table", so the rest of us can support them while they continue their crime careers with the new skills they learned in prison...
__________________
''Agreed. The word "felony" is attached to too damn many piddly little meaningless "crimes", which destroy the rights of good people that made some little mistake. While real criminals get out of jail and then go on one form or another of public assistance, and take jobs "under the table", so the rest of us can support them while they continue their crime careers with the new skills they learned in prison...
__________________
BHP FAN
Member
You look at some of what constitutes a ''felony'' nowadays,and it's almost as though someone wanted to winnow down the number of legitimate gun owners,but that couldn't be....could it? Are we experienceing ''de facto'' gun control,and are just too blind to see it?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
cassandrasdaddy said:
Apparently not! Consequences and personal responsibility have been replaced with Big Brother, and as soon as Big Brother can no longer bear the load, consequences and personal responsibility will have to assume Big Brother's position of prominence. It seems heresy is as fluid as everything else in this world.
Woody
BHP FAN
Member
is the frog boiling, and hey!Does anybody else smell something cooking,and say,isn't it getting WARMER in here>?
But let's not forget the freedom not to learn. There's no reason to assume that someone has learned from his mistakes. He needs to convince us that he has, if he has.wishin said:
rainbowbob
Member
Sure. But will someone please respond to the question I have asked: What does the restriction of 2A rights have to do with non-violent crime and punishment?
What's the connection?
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
I think only violent felons should be barred from owning guns.
w_houle
Member
Ben Franklin felt that people who are guilty of counterfeiting money should be given the death penalty.
I don't know the particulars, but why is it that parents would need to feel like they would have to perform such actions in the first place?
it's in connection that those crimes - in certain ways, and in many ways - cause as much damage to life, property, limb, etc. as do intentional violent crimes. Some are also serious crimes of negligence. Going by the restriction's apparent stream of thought, I can see why you wouldn't want a negligent driver convicted of involuntary manslaughter able to own a weapon. Obviously he couldn't take the serious responsibility of driving, so why should he have a gun and be expected to do the same?
However, I'd venture to say that the REAL reason is to permanently punish people who broke the law enough to the point to where they could not only be trusted with a gun, but also couldn't be trusted to be out in society and not attack someone, break someone's property, steal someone's property, observe safety and the rights of others, etc. because...well, let's face it: the system doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't be letting rotten repeats out just to make room for more repeats that had just recently been released.
If that is not intended to be a rhetorical question, what could any answer that anyone on this board conceivably give to that question have to do with anything? It would be a bare guess, bald speculation. How could anyone here give any answer that would mean anything?rainbowbob said:
If someone decides to seriously pursue ground breaking litigation to get the prohibited person provisions of the GCA of 1968 tossed out or narrowed, the question will no doubt come up. The government will set out its arguments for why there is a compelling state interest. Those arguments will be worked out by a bunch of very seasoned lawyers reviewing reams of material, including thousands of pages of turgid prose that make up the reports of the debates on the legislation as laid out in the Congressional Record. They will form the government's arguments based on an enormous volume of material.
Those arguments will be challenged by the side seeking to nullify the law, and those counter arguments will be developed and framed through a similarly exhaustive process. And a court will decide which argument holds water.
If one wants to pursue lobbying Congress to change the law, do you think that any sort of answer could induce the members of Congress to vote for change alone those lines. What they will want is a good reason to change the law, i.e., sufficient support among their constituents for changes, and a good story to tell their constituents next re-election time about why they voted to let convicted felons have guns.
And putting aside questions of litigation to overturn the law or lobbying to change the law, what does chasing the chimera of a philosophical answer to that question get us. It won't change the reality of the law, nor will it resolve the discontent of those opposed to the law on principle.
The law will remain valid and in effect.
No to mention freedom to be convicted of felony for -- your most favorite ridiculous excuse here --
http://www.sportsrumormill.com/forum/locker-room/24321-autistic-boy-faces-felony-rap.html
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/08/four-teens-arrested-for-tagging-chicago-police-memorial.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/virginia/va-students-charged-with-felon.html
So follow up and let us know if these various kids are finally convicted of felonies. These sorts of things are pretty much always resolved at a much lower level.Agostini said:
But personally, I don't have any sympathy for the vandals who defaced the memorial in Chicago. I am just plain sick of the malicious defacement of our building and monuments by punks.
and you preach to us with a rap sheet consisting of one (1) parking ticket?And you keep on missing the point.
H/T BenEzara: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/bruce-shore-unemployed-ph_n_588798.html
Anything can be construed - it appears - as a felony, or is that just lawyer speak for scaring the living day lights out of us common sense ignorant law-abiding people? When a DA goes for felony, it means nothing to you? Or might it be an indication that things are getting on dangerous grounds?
We're all felons very soon. It does not bother you a bit?
I intensely dislike criminals and vandals, but, yet again, the topic of this thread is the Second Amendment rights to be restored after a non-violent wo/man has done his "felony" time. These kids should loose their rights for a stupid prank? A 14-year old autistic ... come on.
Wanna chat about graffiti again?
H/T BenEzara: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/bruce-shore-unemployed-ph_n_588798.html
Anything can be construed - it appears - as a felony, or is that just lawyer speak for scaring the living day lights out of us common sense ignorant law-abiding people? When a DA goes for felony, it means nothing to you? Or might it be an indication that things are getting on dangerous grounds?
We're all felons very soon. It does not bother you a bit?
I intensely dislike criminals and vandals, but, yet again, the topic of this thread is the Second Amendment rights to be restored after a non-violent wo/man has done his "felony" time. These kids should loose their rights for a stupid prank? A 14-year old autistic ... come on.
Wanna chat about graffiti again?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
