(PA) Mans hunts deer on own property, gets 15 years

[nualle]

lendringser protested:The Bill of Rights has no footnote that says "...except for persons convicted of a felony". If your copy of the Constitution has one, I'd like to see it.

The footnote: The 13th Amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Felony is defined in the U.S., in part, as a crime the conviction for which carries a limited form of life-long involuntary servitude. The form of that servitude includes loss of the rights of a citizen, including voting and having/carrying guns.

My own opinions about felons and the legal system aside, this seems to me to sum up the constitutionality argument.

Good point, Mike Irwin, about the constitution. It's not holy writ and the framers were far from divine. It's not helpful that it's so reverently treated.

 

[Ian]

Mike - The Supreme Court's support of salvery is only the tip of the iceberg. They've made so many disgusting rulings that it boggles the mind. Consider Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. The Court smacked it down repeatedly up until the spring of 1937. At that point, Roosevelt's supporters put a bill into Congress to pack the Court with 6 more pro-Roosevelt judges. Suddenly, the Court reversed its opinion! A couple judges handily changed sides, and 1937 saw a series of landmark pro-huge-government rulings. Heck, since 1940 the Court NEVER ruled against any use of the interstate commerce power until US v Lopez in 1995 (and as we know, the school zone possession law in question there was simply repassed without challenge a few years later).

Here are some specific examples for those of you who trust the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution:

McCray v US (1904) - Congress passed a law placing a tax on artificially-colored oleo margarine. Friggin Federal regulation of margarine. Not for being dangerous, mind you, but simply as a way to jack up the dairy industry (who do you think gave more money to Congress, dairy people or margarine people?). The Court uphold the law as Constitutional, on the grounds that since Congress has the power to levy taxes, it has the power to levy any taxes.

Wickard v Filburn (1942) - Filburn worked a small wheat farm in Ohio. In 1940, he was given permission by the Feds to grow 11.1 acres of wheat (does this strike anyone else as being wrong already?). However, he planted 23 acres of wheat - 11.1 were sold, and the remaining 11.9 were consumed by his family, and never left his property. He was fined $117 for exceed his quota of wheat production (thank you, Komrade Roosevelt). The Supreme Court unanimously upheld his conviction as a legitimate use of federal commerce powers. This is one of the cases defining the use of the commerce clause power to this day.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"At that point, Roosevelt's supporters put a bill into Congress to pack the Court with 6 more pro-Roosevelt judges. Suddenly, the Court reversed its opinion!"

Ian,

You need to read a little more about this.

No, Roosevelt brought up the issue of packing the Supreme Court. The reaction, even from many of his staunchest supporters in Congress?

Roosevelt was pretty much left hanging out to dry.

Condemnation was widespread, and he lost a LOT of political capital. One of the serious consequences was that FDR's legislative initiatitives had a LOT tougher road through Congress after this debacle.

The Court also didn't "suddenly" reverse its opinion.

The New Deal wasn't dealt with in a single, pervasive, and overriding opinion. It was addressed in a whole series of opinions ranging over several years.

The National Recover Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration were, among others, declared to be un Constitutional.

However, it's also instructive to look at what wasn't either brought before the court or found to be unconstitutional -- including the Civilian Conservation Corps and, most importantly of all, the Tennessee Valley Authority.

NRA was struck down in 1935, AAA in 1936.

Interestingly enough, one of the justices MOST opposed to Roosevelt's activities, James(?) McReynolds, was a Wilson appointee and Democrat.

The simple fact of the matter is that large parts of the New Deal WERE unconstitutional by any imaginable reading -- many of those who worked to pass these New Deal laws admitted that they were unconstitutional but felt that the needs of the time more than excused the Constitutional issues.

Now, given that the Supreme Court is made of of men and women, obviously people whose own experiences and views are going to influence their view of what is and what is not Constitutional, and given that the Constitution was written by men whose own experiences and views influenced their writing of the Constitution, just who then IS qualified to say what is and what is not Constitutional?

 

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

There is a procedure in place for restoration of rights to convicted felons. They can petition to have their rights re-instated.

Unfortunately, they have to petition the friendly beareaucrats of our favorite branch of the Federal Gubmint, the BATF.

BATF has flatly REFUSED to so much as entertain the motions of restoring felons rights, citing "a lack of administrative funding and manpower" for what, the past 20-odd years or so? This in spite of the fact that it is a specifically mandated duty they are charged to administrate.

In my mind, this is deliberate malfeasance. The individuals perpetrating THIS little outrage should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town. This policy, like mandatory sentencing, removes any sort of middle ground or mitigation of what is admitted by all concerned to be a dire punishment indeed: the permanent abrogation of rights delineated in the Constitution as "inalienable."

Not that it matters in this particular case, as no mention is made of futile efforts on the part of our felon of the hour. But this is still a major part of the whole issue, as this guy had a form of redress available at least in potentia, that he can't even consider REGARDLESS of what the court thinks. I seem to remember reading that a judge tried to address this with the BATF administration some time ago, and was simply told "NO", citing reasons outlined above. That was where it got left, IIRC. (I think I read this at CATO or KABA, but it was a while back. Sorry I can't provide a reference link.)

Grrrr!

Heads oughta roll for that one. Us peons get hammered with contempt of court for that kind of attitude.

 

[tyme]

[blockquote](Ian) (and as we know, the school zone possession law in question there was simply repassed without challenge a few years later).[/blockquote]
To be fair, the new one has a "in... interstate or foreign commerce" clause, so if you build your own firearm (if it's legal in your state) and haven't moved since then, you should be able to tell the feds to take a hike if they come poking around.

922(q)(2)(a)
It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

So the part of US v Lopez that reads "Second, §922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case by case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce..." is now irrelevant, since 922(q) has such an element now.

 

[Marko Kloos]

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Felony is defined in the U.S., in part, as a crime the conviction for which carries a limited form of life-long involuntary servitude. The form of that servitude includes loss of the rights of a citizen, including voting and having/carrying guns.

The 13th Amendment covers "involuntary servitude", i.e. being in jail and stamping license plates against your will. It does not imply that the Bill of Rights is invalidated once you have been convicted of a crime. Once your period of "involuntary servitude" is over, you once again enjoy full protection as enumerated by the Bil of Rights.

We don't curb the rights of ex-felons when it comes to freedom of speech and religion, do we? What about the Third Amendment...ought the government be able to place soldiers in the houses of ex-felons without their consent? Do felons lose the right to jury trials and due process as recognized in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, for the remainder of their lives? Does torture become legal when it's done on felons, since the Eight Amendment does not apply anymore?

If you think those propositions are ludicrous, why single out the Second Amendment as the only "dangerous" right? Isn't that how the Antis think? And don't you fall into the very same trap as the Antis by asserting that the Bill of Rights is not absolute, and the rights enumerated therein are not "inalienable"?

And if you actually agree with all these propositions, why do you fail to see that you are giving the enmies of freedom precisely the tool they need to abolish the Bill of Rights for all intents and purposes? If you agree that the Bill of Rights no longer applies to felons, how long do you think it will be before an enterprising Statist legislature makes damn near anything a felony?

Oh, wait, they're doing that already.

 

[Ian]

Mike,

Yeah, Roosevelt didn't get much support for packing the Court, but it was enough that Justices Roberts and Hughes joined the liberal faction for good. This, coupled with (conservative) Justice Van Devanter's retirement in June '37 led to a series of decisions specifically overruling the existing pro-free-trade decisions (such as Adkins v Childrens' Hospital, Lochner v US, Hammer v Dagenhart, etc).

The New Deal wasn't dealt with in a single, pervasive, and overriding opinion. It was addressed in a whole series of opinions ranging over several years.

Yes, of course. Being a whole package of laws, the New Deal went to the Court in bits and pieces. But the attitude of the Court underwent a significant change in 1937 and abandoned previous small-government precedents. For instance, the AAA was struck down in 1936 (US v Butler), but was repassed and upheld in 1942 (Wickard v Filburn).

The simple fact of the matter is that large parts of the New Deal WERE unconstitutional by any imaginable reading -- many of those who worked to pass these New Deal laws admitted that they were unconstitutional but felt that the needs of the time more than excused the Constitutional issues.

Yeah - the law seen as an expedient tool for social change. Blech.

[QUOTE...just who then IS qualified to say what is and what is not Constitutional?[/QUOTE] I don't know. The situation could be improved by making some of the Constitution clearer, but short of that I don't know if anything can be done besides trying to get people on the Court who are willing to look at the intent of the document rather than their own preferred programs. In the meantime, I'm perfectly happy to judge Constitutionality myself when laws apply to me. If I can maintain a decent chance of avoiding punishment, I hve no qualms about disregarding a clearly unconstitutional law. The Supreme Court justices aren't bestowed with any superhuman knowledge of the Constitution - I dislike the premise that they should have a monopoly on interpreting it. Would this lead to widespread disregard for the government if everyone though that way? Yes, and that's half the point.

 

[Admiral Thrawn]

15 years for illegal possession is ABSOLUETLY REDICULOUS!

He should have had the gun confiscated and been given a massive fine at the most, but jail time for "illegally" owning gun as you're already a "convicted felon" is bloody stupid IMO.

People has received much shorter sentences for armed robbery, manslaughter, you name it...

:banghead: