Should felons own guns?

[JoshuaR]

Re:

Yes but but not in a situation similar to yourself. The closest was the Bean case, but that more concerned the courts lacking jurisdiction over a petition to ATF, and whether ATF denied it or not, and what the ramifications were. They basically ruled that no action by ATF was not a denial.



You could try it, but it would be expensive, and probably futile.



Supposedly the Constitution of course, which federal code supposedly reflects, and if there is a remedy available in the "code (Which there is)." Whether it is actually being practiced or not appears irrelevant based on Bean, your attempt would likely be futile.

I believe it would go District Court, a 3 judge panel of the District Court of Appeals, possibly the full appellate court, then you file a "writ of certiorari," asking SCOTUS to review, which they can refuse.

IF I were you, I would contact some pro-gun organizations in reference to attorneys they recommend, contact several of them and get their opinions.

I understand the futility of it and I probably have a better chance of the ATF relief program becoming funded again which is also a longshot. I'm sure even a Presidential pardon is more likely. If the law is on the books for the ATF relief program and it's simply not funded, why could an individual not fund his own case?

 

[Mortibis]

Should felons own guns?

I think they should not.

In jail their rights to property and liberty are taken away, and in some situations their right to life. If a crime can take away these natural rights for at least a temporary time I would think that same crime could take away a lesser right.

Another thing to consider however would be the type of crime committed. While on the whole any free-felon would commit a crime with a gun, I would think that certain types of felons would lead to a greater risk of illegal gun employment.

By committing a felon you're basically showing society that you abuse your rights. To lower the probability of a second felon, they should be prohibited from having guns. Also, does spending time in a jail-cell necessarily prove that they've changed their ways let-alone repaid their debt to society. The community basically is paying to house and feed this person, without much reward.

I believe a felon's access to guns should be closed, or at least severely limited

 

[HTColeman]

Constitutional rights are meant to be as absolute as any right can be. When you committ a crime you have to pay your debt to society, that is also constitutional. When you have paid that debt to society you should be able to have you life back, pick up and move on. I realize when the constitution was written pedophiles, serial killers and armed bank robbers weren't the norm and things have to be dealt with differently. If person is a threat to anothers life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness they should be dealt with differently. Again releif needs to be available and each person judged as an individual not by the word felon. It doesn't hurt to mention that the dangerous felons aren't obviously going to care if they can legally posses a gun anyway.

Consider this, an former alchoholic has just stopped drinking alchohol, would you give him a bottle of vodka? Not giving guns to certain felons can also be compared to sexual offenders registering with their community. It is for the safety of those around them.

 

[JoshuaR]

Should felons own guns?

I think they should not.

In jail their rights to property and liberty are taken away, and in some situations their right to life. If a crime can take away these natural rights for at least a temporary time I would think that same crime could take away a lesser right.

First of all the right to property is not taken away in prison, I know I was there, the right to life is only taken away if the convicted has purposefully, maliciously and calculatingly taken someone elses life. Liberty is severly limited, but you do have some liberties, even conjugal visits in some state prisons. The right to liberty is only limited for a period of time based upon the crime committed and only in the most serious crimes is it for life. Is the right to free speech a lesser right than to keep and bear arms? If so, who says?

Another thing to consider however would be the type of crime committed. While on the whole any free-felon would commit a crime with a gun, I would think that certain types of felons would lead to a greater risk of illegal gun employment.

No question that certain felons are more likely to committ a crime with a gun than others. The definition of felon is extremelly broad, I am one, read my past posts and tell me why I don't deserve the full protection of the constitution. Do you think that a felon who would like to committ a crime with a gun won't because it's illegal? Would a felon who's a drug addict refuse heroin because it's illegal? Of course not, they're even doing it in prison and they're creating weapons to kill eachother with while guns are unavailable. This does not mean we should simply say anything goes, to hell with the law, but it also doesn't mean we should become close minded to reality. Not every felon is violent or even close, actually most felons are not convicted for a violent offense.

By committing a felon you're basically showing society that you abuse your rights. To lower the probability of a second felon, they should be prohibited from having guns. Also, does spending time in a jail-cell necessarily prove that they've changed their ways let-alone repaid their debt to society. The community basically is paying to house and feed this person, without much reward.

There are not many people who have not done something that could be considered a violation of some law. There are things that are felonies now that didn't used to be and vice versa, disallowing a felon from owning a gun won't prohibit a second felony, it may make the second felony and the third happen at the same time. The prison system certainly doesn't change a person for the better as a rule, it does change you one way or the other though. Read my previous posts and tell me that it was worth putting me in prison in anyway, the government is looking for the reward of which you speak, just stats for political gain. Once you've served your time, according to law you've paid your debt to society, there is no greater punishment than the loss of freedom.

I believe a felon's access to guns should be closed, or at least severely limited

The only way to realistically achieve this is to outlaw all guns and create a much more restrictive society, which I believe we're already heading towards. The way things are now you can go to any metroploitan downtown and get a 9mm glock with your heroin fix and access to those things is supposed to be closed. Most people willing to obtain guns legally won't committ a crime with them.

 

[JoshuaR]

Consider this, an former alchoholic has just stopped drinking alchohol, would you give him a bottle of vodka? Not giving guns to certain felons can also be compared to sexual offenders registering with their community. It is for the safety of those around them.

I wouldn't give the alchoholic a bottle of vodka, but if he wants to he can go get it from the local gas station. I'm not advocating giving guns to anyone, let alone a convicted violent felon. I'm saying there should be a system in place, whcih there is, congress just won't fund it, to create fairness, so people who deserve the right can own a firearm through legal channels. The sexual offender thing is a good example of what I'm talking about. Is an 18 year old who is convicted of statatory rape for having consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend the same as this John Couey guy in Florida? Hell no. The sex offender registery treats them the same and the public views them the same because that's all they know, "sex offender" the same with felons. It is not about justice and fairness with the government, it's about stats for political use and control. This nation has achieved so many great things, do we lack the technology to properly identify people, blanket definitons do not work and should not be tolerated.

 

[HTColeman]

I wouldn't give the alchoholic a bottle of vodka, but if he wants to he can go get it from the local gas station. I'm not advocating giving guns to anyone, let alone a convicted violent felon. I'm saying there should be a system in place, whcih there is, congress just won't fund it, to create fairness, so people who deserve the right can own a firearm through legal channels. The sexual offender thing is a good example of what I'm talking about. Is an 18 year old who is convicted of statatory rape for having consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend the same as this John Couey guy in Florida? Hell no. The sex offender registery treats them the same and the public views them the same because that's all they know, "sex offender" the same with felons. It is not about justice and fairness with the government, it's about stats for political use and control. This nation has achieved so many great things, do we lack the technology to properly identify people, blanket definitons do not work and should not be tolerated.

Exactly, thats why certain felons shouldn't own guns.

 

[JoshuaR]

Exactly, thats why certain felons shouldn't own guns.

I don't follow your point. The only felons who don't have guns are those that obviously don't want to break the law. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms must be protected for those who are willing to obey the law. Even those who have violated the law before, but have shown remorse, have no prior history and are not violent. The only legal means that a non-violent felon can regain this right now is a Presidential Pardon, that's not enough.

 

[HTColeman]

I don't follow your point. The only felons who don't have guns are those that obviously don't want to break the law. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms must be protected for those who are willing to obey the law. Even those who have violated the law before, but have shown remorse, have no prior history and are not violent. The only legal means that a non-violent felon can regain this right now is a Presidential Pardon, that's not enough.

My point is that we should allow those deemed "safe" (lack of better word) should be able to buy guns. But the problem is determining who is "safe". So somewhat blanket legislations are sometimes unavoidable. Not all felons should be banned from guns, and not all should get guns. I am saying limit it to certain felonies and degrees within those felonies.

 

[JoshuaR]

My point is that we should allow those deemed "safe" (lack of better word) should be able to buy guns. But the problem is determining who is "safe". So somewhat blanket legislations are sometimes unavoidable. Not all felons should be banned from guns, and not all should get guns. I am saying limit it to certain felonies and degrees within those felonies.

It really isn't that difficult to determine who is non-violent simply check their background. There will certainly be mistakes or those people that committ their first violent act after having been deemed "safe". People who have committed a non viloent felony are no more likely to committ a violent act with a gun than anyone else, when I say a non-violent felony I'm speaking mostly of whit collar financial crimes. Many drug crimes are non-violent but drugs can often lead to violence. Blanket legislation is always acceptable as unavoidable to those it doesn't affect. How much screaming would there be if balnket legislation was created disallowing anyone with any middle eastern background from flying. The federal government does not allow people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to posses a firearm, it was very simple for them to segregate a group of misdemeanors, why not felonies?

 

[HTColeman]

It really isn't that difficult to determine who is non-violent simply check their background. There will certainly be mistakes or those people that committ their first violent act after having been deemed "safe". People who have committed a non viloent felony are no more likely to committ a violent act with a gun than anyone else, when I say a non-violent felony I'm speaking mostly of whit collar financial crimes. Many drug crimes are non-violent but drugs can often lead to violence. Blanket legislation is always acceptable as unavoidable to those it doesn't affect. How much screaming would there be if balnket legislation was created disallowing anyone with any middle eastern background from flying. The federal government does not allow people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to posses a firearm, it was very simple for them to segregate a group of misdemeanors, why not felonies?

I know, I am not talking about blankets for all crimes and felonies, I am not worried about a 23 year old computer hacker holding up a bank. I am talking about blanket for crimes involving guns. While things such as drug trafficing could be taken by degree of involvement, gun crimes would be absolute. Any felony committed with a gun cannot own a gun.

 

[JoshuaR]

I know, I am not talking about blankets for all crimes and felonies, I am not worried about a 23 year old computer hacker holding up a bank. I am talking about blanket for crimes involving guns. While things such as drug trafficing could be taken by degree of involvement, gun crimes would be absolute. Any felony committed with a gun cannot own a gun.

That's wonderful, I agree completely but that's not how it is. The 23 year old computer hacker can not posses a firearm under the current system, with no remedy short of a Presidential Pardon. The only way that rights can be taken in this country is by slowly eroding them and that's what's happening. If a 23 year old computer hacker can have the 2nd amendment of the constitution denied him, what's next. The second part of the 2nd amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What has a 23 year old computer hacker done to deserve this, has he also waived his right to free speech, why is the 2nd amendment less important than the first or any for that matter? If his irresponsible actions have no relation to guns then why mess with them? The reason is control and political favor, the politicians are constantly saying the words tough on crime and no guns in the hands of a felon, they don't mention 23 year old computer hacker, just felon and all of the stigma that goes with it. The point is that even if you don't own guns and don't like them we all must make a stand on this, there may be something down the line that is supposedly guaranteed you by the constitution that isn't so important to the next guy, you'll want and need his support. This isn't so much a gun issue as it is a fight for what's right and denying a constitutional right to someone for a reason that has no correlation begs the question, what's next.

 

[HTColeman]

That's wonderful, I agree completely but that's not how it is. The 23 year old computer hacker can not posses a firearm under the current system, with no remedy short of a Presidential Pardon. The only way that rights can be taken in this country is by slowly eroding them and that's what's happening. If a 23 year old computer hacker can have the 2nd amendment of the constitution denied him, what's next. The second part of the 2nd amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What has a 23 year old computer hacker done to deserve this, has he also waived his right to free speech, why is the 2nd amendment less important than the first or any for that matter? If his irresponsible actions have no relation to guns then why mess with them? The reason is control and political favor, the politicians are constantly saying the words tough on crime and no guns in the hands of a felon, they don't mention 23 year old computer hacker, just felon and all of the stigma that goes with it. The point is that even if you don't own guns and don't like them we all must make a stand on this, there may be something down the line that is supposedly guaranteed you by the constitution that isn't so important to the next guy, you'll want and need his support. This isn't so much a gun issue as it is a fight for what's right and denying a constitutional right to someone for a reason that has no correlation begs the question, what's next.

You know I often wonder what would happen if people spoke their opinions to the gov't and across the media? Then I realize that you would probably be ignored, how many people speak out and get recognition like Cindy Sheehan? Then when they do speak out, they are bashed by fellow Americans who disagree with them. I guess my real question, when we do get the rare chance that our words carry across the nation, is the gov't even listening? Or do they just smile and nod their heads to make us feel better?

 

[JoshuaR]

You know I often wonder what would happen if people spoke their opinions to the gov't and across the media? Then I realize that you would probably be ignored, how many people speak out and get recognition like Cindy Sheehan? Then when they do speak out, they are bashed by fellow Americans who disagree with them. I guess my real question, when we do get the rare chance that our words carry across the nation, is the gov't even listening? Or do they just smile and nod their heads to make us feel better?

The reason that Cindy Sheehan is getting so much recognition is because all of the anti war people are using her for their agenda. If enough people contact their congressmen and senators on a subject something will happen, nothing scares these people more than losing their positions. Like I've explained before there is a federal law providing that the ATF do background checks on felons who make application with them. This is to be done after probation is complete to determine if someone is non-violent, if they are deemed to be non-violent they are to have their 2nd amendment rights restored. This law makes perfect sense and I support it completely. In 1993 after intense oppostion to the law by the VPC, Violence Policy Center Congress stopped funding the ATF to deal with the program, we now have a useless law on the books. The VPC sited a few instances where people who had their 2nd amendment rights restored had committed a violent act, they stated that it's better to keep guns from all felons if it'll stop a few. The problem is that guns are still in the hands of most violent felons illegally, if they're not worried about the main crime their committing why worry about the legality of having a gun. The VPC ia an anti-gun organization that wants all guns gone and in 1993 they had a Congres and White House that agreed. The NRA and other pro-gun groups are too afraid to deal with this issue, most people are ignorant of what a felon is. To most Americans a felon is Timothy McVey, not a 23 year old computer hacker. Can you imagine the stories on CNN if the NRA came out and publicly supported the ATF program, the headlines would read NRA wants to arm felons. The only way to right this is for people regardless of their political affiliation to tell the legislators that this is wrong, there must be a remedy for the millions who are felons for a multitude of non-violent reasons. I would even pay the expense the ATF incurred myself, but that's not even allowed at this time. Can you imagine a felon paying $3,000.00 to the ATF to do a background check on them, getting their gun rights back so they could rob a bank or kill someone? They wouldn't, they'd buy the damn thing on the street or the local classifieds for $100.00.

 

[HTColeman]

The reason that Cindy Sheehan is getting so much recognition is because all of the anti war people are using her for their agenda. If enough people contact their congressmen and senators on a subject something will happen, nothing scares these people more than losing their positions. Like I've explained before there is a federal law providing that the ATF do background checks on felons who make application with them. This is to be done after probation is complete to determine if someone is non-violent, if they are deemed to be non-violent they are to have their 2nd amendment rights restored. This law makes perfect sense and I support it completely. In 1993 after intense oppostion to the law by the VPC, Violence Policy Center Congress stopped funding the ATF to deal with the program, we now have a useless law on the books. The VPC sited a few instances where people who had their 2nd amendment rights restored had committed a violent act, they stated that it's better to keep guns from all felons if it'll stop a few. The problem is that guns are still in the hands of most violent felons illegally, if they're not worried about the main crime their committing why worry about the legality of having a gun. The VPC ia an anti-gun organization that wants all guns gone and in 1993 they had a Congres and White House that agreed. The NRA and other pro-gun groups are too afraid to deal with this issue, most people are ignorant of what a felon is. To most Americans a felon is Timothy McVey, not a 23 year old computer hacker. Can you imagine the stories on CNN if the NRA came out and publicly supported the ATF program, the headlines would read NRA wants to arm felons. The only way to right this is for people regardless of their political affiliation to tell the legislators that this is wrong, there must be a remedy for the millions who are felons for a multitude of non-violent reasons. I would even pay the expense the ATF incurred myself, but that's not even allowed at this time. Can you imagine a felon paying $3,000.00 to the ATF to do a background check on them, getting their gun rights back so they could rob a bank or kill someone? They wouldn't, they'd buy the damn thing on the street or the local classifieds for $100.00.

I don't think any of us know enough about who Cindy Sheehan is as a person to determine the reasoning behind her actions, I am neither for nor against her, what she wants from Bush is her business.

As far as talking to legislators, are they listening or do they just want your vote? There is a big difference, if they just want your vote they will tell you what you want to hear to vote for them. If they are listening, they will truly take your opinion into consideration, take it before other legislators and voters.

 

[JoshuaR]

I don't think any of us know enough about who Cindy Sheehan is as a person to determine the reasoning behind her actions, I am neither for nor against her, what she wants from Bush is her business.

As far as talking to legislators, are they listening or do they just want your vote? There is a big difference, if they just want your vote they will tell you what you want to hear to vote for them. If they are listening, they will truly take your opinion into consideration, take it before other legislators and voters.

I never said anything about being for or against Cindy Sheehan, I said she's receiving the publicity because those who hate the President are using her. Do you think that if she was setting up a vigil in Crawfors, TX is support of the President she'd get this much time?

All legislators want is your vote. If they make the mistake of telling you they agree with you and will support you, you vote for them and they don't support you, will you vote for them again. No legislator will ever do anything he thinks will not be approved by his constituants, and if his constituants support something in a majority he'll support it, it is all votes.

 

[HTColeman]

I never said anything about being for or against Cindy Sheehan, I said she's receiving the publicity because those who hate the President are using her. Do you think that if she was setting up a vigil in Crawfors, TX is support of the President she'd get this much time?

All legislators want is your vote. If they make the mistake of telling you they agree with you and will support you, you vote for them and they don't support you, will you vote for them again. No legislator will ever do anything he thinks will not be approved by his constituants, and if his constituants support something in a majority he'll support it, it is all votes.

Well that sucks for me, Texas is probably about 5% Democrat, where does my opinion fall?

 

[JoshuaR]

Well that sucks for me, Texas is probably about 5% Democrat, where does my opinion fall?

If this implies that you are a Democrat, I guess that makes it tough being in Texas. I haven't met many Democrats that think anyone needs to have a gun, only in Texas.

 

[TJS0110]

I like guns, I think everyone should be able to get one. Some people have done things that make them more likely to use guns for violence. To ignore that information is not only foolish but irresponsible as well. We need to pay attention to warning signs, however we should not over step our bounds by taking away a constitutional right. We should make felons register as a punishment and a safety measure, I really don't think that it will really effect the problem, because a murderer will buy an illegal gun and a normal gun owning ex-felon won't be killing anyone so the registration wont really matter. However if the public is hellbent on making a law that will make them sleep better at night then this is how i think it should go.

 

[JoshuaR]

I like guns, I think everyone should be able to get one. Some people have done things that make them more likely to use guns for violence. To ignore that information is not only foolish but irresponsible as well. We need to pay attention to warning signs, however we should not over step our bounds by taking away a constitutional right. We should make felons register as a punishment and a safety measure, I really don't think that it will really effect the problem, because a murderer will buy an illegal gun and a normal gun owning ex-felon won't be killing anyone so the registration wont really matter. However if the public is hellbent on making a law that will make them sleep better at night then this is how i think it should go.

As I've said before there is a law on the books to do just that, it was created in 1968, the funding taken in 1993. Inform your Congressman that you think either funding should be restored to the program or applicants should be allowed to fund their own applications.

 

[mistermain]

I own a gun because I fear all the felons that own guns. This town can be scary.

 

[JoshuaR]

I own a gun because I fear all the felons that own guns. This town can be scary.

Make sure that you don't make any mistakes and become a felon yourself. There was certainly a time when I didn't think I'd ever be one, just think Martha Stewart is a felon, you wouldn't want to be a felon yourself and not be able to defend yourself from the likes of Martha.

 

[Valis]

Good topic.

First, I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes.

There are many prices to be paid for freedom. We are conditioned to believe that only certain people sacrifce for freedom. Ie: Military personell, Police officers etc. This is not the case. We alll have to pay the price, one way or another. When someone spouts of at the mouth, and it is something you do not like, and cannot do anything about, you are paying the price of Freedom, in this case, Freedom Of Speech. Guns are a price you have to pay.

The SCOTUS refused one in

SCOTUS, needs to be forced to start hearing cases..They are beginning to play the game of not hearing certain Political Hot potatoe cases a little to much.

There is a law on the books from 1968 allowing people to apply to the ATF for reinstatement of gun rights, in 1993 congress stopped funding it because of political pressure. Making it virtually a non-functioning law.

This is something the Govt does alot, pass a law, withhold funding.

I am just kind of juming in here, but lets make this more specific. I believe that certain felons should not own guns, such as those who commit homocide, robbery, and drug dealing.

If that is the case, then our entire Govt should be indicted, because it is guilty of all three.

He does decide sentencing, but he has to follow sentencing guidelines established by the legislative process. The issue you have, generally is removed from the judges discretion by that legislative process. Only the legislative process can change this.

Amazing is'nt it? The Govt taking discretion out of the hands of Justices. Draconian Control.

Is anything absolute, other than death?

Yes, there are three things that are absolute. Death, Taxes, and Bad Politics.

Restrictions are part of the penalty, just like jail time is.

I am not aware of any historical context to support this. At the time of founding, Lifetime Punishment/Penalty was an alien concept to the founders, when the subject was brought up, they where not in favor of it.. You committed a crime, you where punished, at the end of that punishment, you where free to do what you pleased, providing you where not executed for your crimes of course. (Constitutional Convention Debates, Philadelphia, Doc. 72,74,78,80 Jefferson/Franklin/Washington)

To have the rights of a citizen you have to obey the laws,

I am unware of any such statement ever being made by any of the founders, or written into the foundations of the country. Becareful, because what you have said is a very, and I mean a very dangerous statement.

No becuase when they are arrested for a crime they sacrafice there rights becuase they are unwilling to take on the responsibleity of the laws. You do not get the privalige without the responsibleity.

I'm sorry, but did you just call Rights a privalige?

Shoudl Felons be allowed to posses guns? Yes, they have paid their debts, they should be allowed to. Who would tolerate the first, ammn, being rescinded for Felons, no one. When you get into the buisness of saying who can, and cannot have what rights, you are taking a step down the road to Fascism/Communism/Despotism, etc.

And to make thigs clear, many states, including PA, have expanded gun control laws, to cover those convicted of Misdomeanors, and Multiple Summery Offenses, not just Felonies. The trend that we all see here, is the Govt looking for any excuse to seize, and prevent people from owning firearms.

What is the Law? The Law is what they (Legislators) say it is. If they decided tomorrow to pass a law, forbidding the use of the color purple, would it be unconstitutional? Yes, but if you used purple would you still get busted? Yes, because there are many LEO's, and DA's who would say, the Law is the law. Likewise, there are many Justices who would say it as well. Suppose they made it a Felony, and therefor you could not own firearms. Now suppose the case works it's way to scotus, and scotus decides againt the law, making it unconstitutional. Would you still have a criminal record? Yes, would you still have restrictions? Yes, unless there was a grandfather clause, which let's face it, you get more laws with grandfather clauses affecting Cits in a negative way, then a positive one.

have a very good understanding of the bill of rights, constitution and the english language. The second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Or you can read the Federalist Papers, Constitutional Convention Debates, as well as the personal letters of the founders, and you can clearly see what the intent of the 2nd Am was. For The individual, and for the populace, against Abusive Govt, and for the protection of Life, Property, Freedom, and Foreign Invasion. Those papers are something gun control advocates tend to forget.

Three books I suggest whcih touch on what I have talked about.


Constitutional Chaos : What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws (Hardcover)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-6096355-2884039?v=glance&s=books

The Seven Myths Of Gun Control
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761525580/002-6096355-2884039?v=glance



Go Directly to Jail : The Criminalization of Almost Everything (Hardcover)
by Gene HealyBook Description
The American criminal justice system is becoming ever more centralized and punitive, owing to rampant federalization and mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. Go Directly to Jail examines these alarming trends and proposes reforms that could rein in a criminal justice apparatus at war with fairness and common sense.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...3/002-6096355-2884039?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

 

[JoshuaR]

Good topic.

First, I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes.

There are many prices to be paid for freedom. We are conditioned to believe that only certain people sacrifce for freedom. Ie: Military personell, Police officers etc. This is not the case. We alll have to pay the price, one way or another. When someone spouts of at the mouth, and it is something you do not like, and cannot do anything about, you are paying the price of Freedom, in this case, Freedom Of Speech. Guns are a price you have to pay.




SCOTUS, needs to be forced to start hearing cases..They are beginning to play the game of not hearing certain Political Hot potatoe cases a little to much.




This is something the Govt does alot, pass a law, withhold funding.




If that is the case, then our entire Govt should be indicted, because it is guilty of all three.



Amazing is'nt it? The Govt taking discretion out of the hands of Justices. Draconian Control.





Yes, there are three things that are absolute. Death, Taxes, and Bad Politics.




I am not aware of any historical context to support this. At the time of founding, Lifetime Punishment/Penalty was an alien concept to the founders, when the subject was brought up, they where not in favor of it.. You committed a crime, you where punished, at the end of that punishment, you where free to do what you pleased, providing you where not executed for your crimes of course. (Constitutional Convention Debates, Philadelphia, Doc. 72,74,78,80 Jefferson/Franklin/Washington)




I am unware of any such statement ever being made by any of the founders, or written into the foundations of the country. Becareful, because what you have said is a very, and I mean a very dangerous statement.




I'm sorry, but did you just call Rights a privalige?

Shoudl Felons be allowed to posses guns? Yes, they have paid their debts, they should be allowed to. Who would tolerate the first, ammn, being rescinded for Felons, no one. When you get into the buisness of saying who can, and cannot have what rights, you are taking a step down the road to Fascism/Communism/Despotism, etc.

And to make thigs clear, many states, including PA, have expanded gun control laws, to cover those convicted of Misdomeanors, and Multiple Summery Offenses, not just Felonies. The trend that we all see here, is the Govt looking for any excuse to seize, and prevent people from owning firearms.

What is the Law? The Law is what they (Legislators) say it is. If they decided tomorrow to pass a law, forbidding the use of the color purple, would it be unconstitutional? Yes, but if you used purple would you still get busted? Yes, because there are many LEO's, and DA's who would say, the Law is the law. Likewise, there are many Justices who would say it as well. Suppose they made it a Felony, and therefor you could not own firearms. Now suppose the case works it's way to scotus, and scotus decides againt the law, making it unconstitutional. Would you still have a criminal record? Yes, would you still have restrictions? Yes, unless there was a grandfather clause, which let's face it, you get more laws with grandfather clauses affecting Cits in a negative way, then a positive one.





Or you can read the Federalist Papers, Constitutional Convention Debates, as well as the personal letters of the founders, and you can clearly see what the intent of the 2nd Am was. For The individual, and for the populace, against Abusive Govt, and for the protection of Life, Property, Freedom, and Foreign Invasion. Those papers are something gun control advocates tend to forget.

Three books I suggest whcih touch on what I have talked about.


Constitutional Chaos : What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws (Hardcover)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-6096355-2884039?v=glance&s=books

The Seven Myths Of Gun Control
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761525580/002-6096355-2884039?v=glance



Go Directly to Jail : The Criminalization of Almost Everything (Hardcover)
by Gene HealyBook Description
The American criminal justice system is becoming ever more centralized and punitive, owing to rampant federalization and mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. Go Directly to Jail examines these alarming trends and proposes reforms that could rein in a criminal justice apparatus at war with fairness and common sense.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...3/002-6096355-2884039?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

I'm a little pressed for time right now, but I appreciate your posting very much and I agree with pretty much everything you've written. I will get the books you suggested, and I also read those supporting documents you site. The more the truth is known by all the better. I will respond in more detail later. Thank You!!

 

[C.J.]

Here is an old article which describes some of the politics of your situation.
http://www.triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/5955.jsp

 

[JoshuaR]

Here is an old article which describes some of the politics of your situation.
http://www.triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/5955.jsp

Thank you!!!!