Would Incorporation effect the Lautenberg Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, but the truth is plain as daylight, Lautenberg, NFA, GCA, ect..all add up to privilege.
Although the laws right now are both numerous and invasive, no matter how much we fight them there will always be SOME gun control whether we like it or not. Don't bet on the machine gun regulations, background checks or licenses for CCW being repealed anytime soon.Our rights rights are not absolute. The First Amendment is regulated (considerably less than the Second, but still), the Fourth Amendment has been regulated all but out of existence. RKBA is our right, but it's not an absolute right under the law. Not here, not anywhere. It's a tough pill to swallow, but that's just how it is.
 
Last edited:
^^^ I disagree.....kind of. If the court rules it is incorporated against the states and it requires strict scruitiny (like the others on the BOR)

Keep dreaming. If the court were going to rule based on strict scrutiny, they would have done so during Heller. The court already said that they did not want to overturn long standing prohibitions.
 
Sorry, but the truth is plain as daylight, Lautenberg, NFA, GCA, ect..all add up to privilege.

I think that bans on criminals and mentally handicapped would pass even strict scrutiny. Those laws are both compelling state interests AND narrowly tailored. Same with bans in sensitive places. That's all you need for strict scrutiny.
 
I think that bans on criminals and mentally handicapped would pass even strict scrutiny. Those laws are both compelling state interests AND narrowly tailored. Same with bans in sensitive places. That's all you need for strict scrutiny.
The mentally ill/handicapped are an issue I am open to, defrocking men & women of the ability to defend themselves with a firearm, in perpetuity, for a past non-violent crime is a human rights abuse as far as I'm concerned.
 
It also completely runs around the real question - if someone who, say, committed violent felonies obviously cannot be trusted with a gun, then what in the world are they even doing walking on the street?

"Well, sir, we know you're a convicted raping murderer, but you're free to roam the streets. But please don't buy a gun from a gun store!"

The point is, there shouldn't be laws prohibiting guns for violent offenders because violent offenders shouldn't be out of prison (or maybe even alive), period. The question shouldn't even exist.
 
For all those who feel strongly that felons ought not be permanently barred from possessing guns, the relevant provisions of the GCA are ripe for judicial challenge now that Heller has been decided. And assuming the McDonald goes our way, similar state statutes could also be attacked in court. It's just a matter of finding the right plaintiffs -- and a very large amount of money. Any volunteers, either as plaintiff or to furnish the financing?

Personally, I think a court is likely to sustain at least some of the classes of prohibited persons. So any serious change will require a political solution. And I doubt that easing any restrictions is going to be politically viable.

Anyway I'm not going get all worked up because felons lose some rights, including the right to bear arms -- too bad, but they did the crime and the loss of rights is part of the result.

Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime.

Is that a perfect result? No, but we'll have to wait for Heaven for perfect justice. And overall, I don't see it as necessarily unreasonable that part of the total price tag for a felony is loss of gun rights in perpetuity.

Can people change? Sure, but merely having completed one's sentence is not evidence of having changed. It is, and should be, the felon's burden to demonstrate that he has changed. There are procedures whereby a felon may seek restoration of his rights, and that is how he can demonstrate that he has changed. But until he has shown that he has changed, it's not unreasonable for the rest of us to be somewhat guarded about how much we trust him.
 
.
Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime.





I think some felonies should bar use of arms.




Someone who has numerous speeding tickets or even one dangerous driving citation can receive a felony.


Does that mean they shouldn't be able to hunt or protect themselves?



Violent crimes, do I agree?

Yes.
.
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
...Someone who has numerous speeding tickets or even one dangerous driving citation can receive a felony.


Does that mean they shouldn't be able to hunt or protect themselves?...
Someone who has such lousy judgment or self control that he racks up enough speeding tickets to get hit with a felony or who draws a felony conviction for driving a deadly weapon in a dangerous manner doesn't seem to me to be a prime candidate for responsible gun ownership.
 
.
At 18 years old my brother was driving 80mph in a 65. He could have been cited with wreckless driving, or careless driving because he failed to see the officer behind him. He was driving a surburban that was full so the rearview mirror didn't work and he hadn't seen him in his sideview mirrors. The officers thought he was trying to run and called a pursuit. Once they realized it was my brother who was harmless and perhaps not to bright they let him go with a ticket.


I guess he should never be able to hunt again, or have a gun for self-defense, huh?
.
 
All I was saying was that the criminal/mentally ill/sensitive places laws would most likely pass strict scrutiny. I didn't take any personal stand on the issue. I'm just saying that its a futile argument because Even Scalia would uphold those laws.
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
...I guess he should never be able to hunt again, or have a gun for self-defense, huh?...
If I understand you correctly, he was not, in fact, convicted of a felony. So his situation is irrelevant.

In any case, I stand by my comments. Picking up a vehicular felony generally calls for some fairly seriously irresponsible, dangerous and/or reckless conduct.
 
divemedic said:
...Possession of 6 sex toys in Texas- felony. Five toys OK though.
Tripping a horse in Florida- felony...
So what? If you want to keep your gun rights, limit yourself to 5 sex toys in Texas and don't trip horses in Florida. It's up to you. Know the law and conduct yourself accordingly. (And lobby your legislatures.)

But it is what it is. If you think it should be different, there are ways to change things.
 
What came to mind...

when I saw
The First Amendment is regulated (considerable less than the Second, but still), the Fourth Amendment has been regulated all but out of existence.
I flashed back to my youth, ok I flashed way back to my youth. When we were picking side to play baseball, one guy would throw a bat and another would catch it. Those to "captains" would alternate gripping the bat to the top and when the last grip was in place, the one without a grip would get one kick at the bat, held just by the last grip. If the last grip was tenuous or the kick was vicious enough or the grippers attention was unfocused the bat would fall. This gave first choice to the kicker. If the grip held, the gripper picked first.
The 2nd is our bat. We strive to keep the first pick but opposing forces fight us at each grip.(Oh by the way, it was allowable to insert a two finger "V" grip on the bat handle if it was judged that there was insufficient room to get the last "good" grip.) Sometimes we lose the kick, sometimes we win, but we always must keep gripping. To stretch the analogy, the opposing forces have used 400lb bats, glue on their hands and karate champions to kick. We have a good grip now and the SCOTUS is preparing to kick. Thanks for the memory tickle.:)
Lautenberg and others are watching to see if they will come in to play!
 
All I was saying was that the criminal/mentally ill/sensitive places laws would most likely pass strict scrutiny. I didn't take any personal stand on the issue. I'm just saying that its a futile argument because Even Scalia would uphold those laws.
All I'm saying is it hasn't been a right for an awfully long time now, rights that are easily stripped, even pre-emptively stripped, aren't really rights, they are privileges, and privileges are easily taken away.
 
So what? If you want to keep your gun rights, limit yourself to 5 sex toys in Texas and don't trip horses in Florida. It's up to you. Know the law and conduct yourself accordingly. (And lobby your legislatures.)

But it is what it is. If you think it should be different, there are ways to change things.

Including having the SCOTUS find that prohibiting felons from owning firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on the RKBA?

What happens when it is declared a felony to speak ill of the President? Or to own books? Will it still be my responsibility to follow such an unconstitutional law? OR can I have it struck down? The BOR, along with the rest of the constitution, is there to protect me from the tyranny of the majority.
 
Why the 2nd is so important....

We must concurr that we have reached a critical mass. That so many rights have been eroded, so many unjust laws have been promulgated that we look to the right to keep and bear as the bulwark agains further erosions in our liberty. We must see this as the un-losable battle. The line in the sand, our Thermoplye. If June comes and SCOTUS finds for Chicago, I forsee the streets of Chicago afire. Alright that happens every other summer so I'm not clairvoiant, just optimistic.
 
divemedic said:
fiddletown said:
So what? If you want to keep your gun rights, limit yourself to 5 sex toys in Texas and don't trip horses in Florida. It's up to you. Know the law and conduct yourself accordingly. (And lobby your legislatures.)

But it is what it is. If you think it should be different, there are ways to change things.
Including having the SCOTUS find that prohibiting felons from owning firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on the RKBA?
Nothing guarantees you your desired result.

divemedic said:
...What happens when it is declared a felony to speak ill of the President? Or to own books?...
Let us know when that happens.

divemedic said:
...Will it still be my responsibility to follow such an unconstitutional law? OR can I have it struck down? The BOR, along with the rest of the constitution, is there to protect me from the tyranny of the majority.
You're apparently very dissatisfied with the way things work here. Is there any place you'd prefer?
 
^^^^Against my better judjment, I'm jumping in here.

Grabbing quotes and firing off little remarks is fun, but you offer no other fact, position.....etc.

Why do you disagree, what is your position?
 
Let us know when that happens.

It has, just with the 2A instead of the 1A. Or do you think that the second is not as important as the first?

You're apparently very dissatisfied with the way things work here. Is there any place you'd prefer?

Here, but with a government that treats its founding documents as more than toilet paper. That's OK, though. That is what this case is about. One step at a time, we are eliminating the enforcement of your statist attitude.

Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character.

and when a man trips a horse or owns one too many sex toys, what flaw is displayed that makes it necessary to deprive a man of his civil rights?

The problem that I have is that some felonies have no business being felonies. Copying a movie, while a crime, is in no way worthy of depriving a person of their rights for the remainder of their lives.

It is a felony to gamble online in Washington State.

In Texas, it is a felony to own more than 5 dildos.

Smoke pot in your home in Texas- misdemeanor, unless your house is less than 1000 feet from a school (including college), day care, school bus stop, church, or government building, then it is a felony.

So a college kid, being stupid, smokes a joint in his dorm, or owns 6 sex toys, is a felon and has his rights taken away for life? No more voting, hunting, or even protecting his own life? To me, that is insanity.

It is easy for some to say "Don't break the law, then." But really, why not just use that logic to make exceeding the speed limit a felony?

Instead of a blanket law that prohibits felons from EVER owning a gun, why not make it a part of sentencing? Something like:

Nonviolent felony: Loss of gun rights for a period not to exceed 5 years.
Violent felony that does not include a weapon, first offense: Loss of gun rights for a period of not less than 3 years, nor more than 15 years. Second offense: Not less than 10 years, nor more than 25 years
Violent felony involving a weapon: loss of gun rights for a period of not less than 7 years, up to life
In no case will a felon have his firearm rights restored while on probation, parole, or within 1 year of being released from prison.

This makes more sense to me than "zero tolerance" and allows the court to have the punishment fit the crime.

May your chains rest lightly upon you.
 
Last edited:
divemedic said:
...Instead of a blanket law that prohibits felons from EVER owning a gun, why not make it a part of sentencing? ....
The short answer is "because things aren't that way."

If you think things ought to be that way, and enough people agree with you, you collectively can do something about it. Set up a fund to finance litigation and lobbying for changes to statutes.
 
If you think things ought to be that way, and enough people agree with you, you collectively can do something about it. Set up a fund to finance litigation and lobbying for changes to statutes.

Of course, we could recognize that many such "felony gun" laws are unconstitutionally restrictive, and get a court ruling that way. That is why we have a Constitution. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that we live in a Democracy.

There is a chance that such laws are denying people their right to due process.
 
divemedic said:
fiddletown said:
If you think things ought to be that way, and enough people agree with you, you collectively can do something about it. Set up a fund to finance litigation and lobbying for changes to statutes.
Of course, we could recognize that many such "felony gun" laws are unconstitutionally restrictive, and get a court ruling that way. That is why we have a Constitution. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that we live in a Democracy....
Of course what's more important than what you "recognize" is what the court decides. In any case, you need enough people who will go along with your view to be able to marshal sufficient money to finance the effort. It will be expensive, and without enough support you'll lack the wherewithal to carry it through.

divemedic said:
...There is a chance that such laws are denying people their right to due process.
How do you figure? If someone is convicted and exhausted (or declined to pursue) available appeals, he has had due process.

But your due process argument has more weight in the case of domestic restraining orders. At least temporary restraining orders involve ex parte proceedings or proceedings on shortened notice. Deprivation, even temporarily, of a fundamental right without sufficient notice to properly prepare and a full adversarial proceeding seems vulnerable to a due process challenge.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top