Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 68 GCA is what made it a federal felony for an ex felon to own guns. There are some states that 0utlaw it as well, but whether or not their lawed preceded 1968, I can't say.
Every topic on earth can be "fiercely debated", including which is the best brand of toilet paper. An opinion, is an opinion, is an opinion and everybody has one. What the "founding fathers" intended is as up for interpretation as the bible, apparently.
Every topic on earth can be "fiercely debated", including which is the best brand of toilet paper. An opinion, is an opinion, is an opinion and everybody has one. What the "founding fathers" intended is as up for interpretation as the bible, apparently.
the problem I have with that, is that federal law violates even that part of the 2nd Amendment. no where does it say after you have served your time and are once again a free person that you dont get back your constitutional rights. if you dont want felons to have firearms, then keep them in prison. otherwise they get all of their rights back, without any sort of condition.
The 5th and 14th Amendments are the legal basis for these laws, collectively they are known as the "Due Process Clauses":
5th Amdendment:
[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .
14th Amendment:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .
Since the revocation of ones right to own or carry a firearm is a clearly defined penalty for committing certain crimes, once one is convicted of said crime following the due process standards they are able to have that right stripped away.
The exact method is the following of what has become defined as substantive due process or SDP. First the court determines whether the right being limited is fundamental. Obviously as part of the "Bill of Rights" the 2nd is considered fundamental. Since it is fundamental the court applies the "strict scrutiny" test where they determine if there is a compelling state interest to restrict the right. In cases where the right is not fundamental they apply a lesser standard known as the "rational basis test". Under that test it must merely be determined that limiting the right is a rational action related to a legitimate government purpose.
The felon firearm prohibitions have been challenged before under substantive due process and each time it was determined that the state proved that the laws could hold up to "strict scrutiny" given the governments interest in protecting people at large.
This is not to say it is right or wrong, I happen to think it is right to do, but merely illustrates the constitutional and legal methods for how it is done. The government is well within its ability to strip you of your rights, even the fundamental ones, as long as they follow due process and can prove the reason/need to the courts standard.
The 5th and 14th Amendments are the legal basis for these laws, collectively they are known as the "Due Process Clauses":
5th Amdendment:
[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .
14th Amendment:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .
Since the revocation of ones right to own or carry a firearm is a clearly defined penalty for committing certain crimes, once one is convicted of said crime following the due process standards they are able to have that right stripped away.
The exact method is the following of what has become defined as substantive due process or SDP. First the court determines whether the right being limited is fundamental. Obviously as part of the "Bill of Rights" the 2nd is considered fundamental. Since it is fundamental the court applies the "strict scrutiny" test where they determine if there is a compelling state interest to restrict the right. In cases where the right is not fundamental they apply a lesser standard known as the "rational basis test". Under that test it must merely be determined that limiting the right is a rational action related to a legitimate government purpose.
The felon firearm prohibitions have been challenged before under substantive due process and each time it was determined that the state proved that the laws could hold up to "strict scrutiny" given the governments interest in protecting people at large.
This is not to say it is right or wrong, I happen to think it is right to do, but merely illustrates the constitutional and legal methods for how it is done. The government is well within its ability to strip you of your rights, even the fundamental ones, as long as they follow due process and can prove the reason/need to the courts standard.
I will agree to a point. as long as that person is in jail, prison or out on parole. but once that person has fulfilled all of those obligations, then their rights should be returned to them...all of their rights. if the state and fedgov doesnt like that, then they should keep them on permanent parole, or in prison forever.
there is nothing that precludes the ex felon from being called up for militia service, so he should get his gun rights back. However, guys, men over the age for "call up" to the militia thus have no gun rights, if that is what you depend upon for this restoration. :-) How many agree with that? rIGHTS come out of the barrel of a gun. you only have rights that you can/will KILL enough would be usurpers of those rights to MAKE them acknowledge your rights. That's why most 3rd worlders have no rights, they have not fought to achieve/maintain them. same for animals. If rabbits COULD somehow break the necks of hawks preying on them, who would say that they do not have that "right" to self defense, by ANY means possible, eh? Rights are inalienable and are yours by being born. they are not "granted" by the constitution or by anyone else. they are yours only as long as you are willing/able to defend them from usurpers.
While I have no issue with limiting rights of felons, I also see the authorities being very lax so it really makes no difference anyway. In my community, a lot of criminals get charged with "firearm by felon" along with their other crimes. Some of them are out on parole at the time and still get bail. The idea of parole is that if you screw up the privilege of it, you lose it & go back to prison without passing GO, without collecting $200. But now, you can rape, rob and pillage, go to prison, get parole & do more crime, then not even lose parole when you are caught. Even having and using that forbidden weapon does not get you back to prison. Is this a great country or what?
So in the end, firearms legislation and gun control in general is a waste of time and resources. The paper or computer space used to store the legislation is wasted.
While I have no issue with limiting rights of felons, I also see the authorities being very lax so it really makes no difference anyway. In my community, a lot of criminals get charged with "firearm by felon" along with their other crimes. Some of them are out on parole at the time and still get bail. The idea of parole is that if you screw up the privilege of it, you lose it & go back to prison without passing GO, without collecting $200. But now, you can rape, rob and pillage, go to prison, get parole & do more crime, then not even lose parole when you are caught. Even having and using that forbidden weapon does not get you back to prison. Is this a great country or what?
So in the end, firearms legislation and gun control in general is a waste of time and resources. The paper or computer space used to store the legislation is wasted.
[quote=NJGOAT;26426437]
l
She might, but that circles back into the statistics we were talking about earlier. Statistically the elderly woman using her gun to defend herself from a street punk is so rare as to virtually be non-existent. She has a better chance of having her gun used against her, or her using it in a case of mistaken identity to shoot someone she knows.
Can you name a case where the person had the gun used against her? Can you name a case of mistaken identity shooting?
l
She might, but that circles back into the statistics we were talking about earlier. Statistically the elderly woman using her gun to defend herself from a street punk is so rare as to virtually be non-existent. She has a better chance of having her gun used against her, or her using it in a case of mistaken identity to shoot someone she knows.
Can you name a case where the person had the gun used against her? Can you name a case of mistaken identity shooting?
How often do incidents where the bad guys are scared away just by the sight of a gun get recorded? Zero.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
