when this country was founded, the RKBA was denied murders simply because they were put to death now they do <20yrs and are back on the streets
Posted on 05/11/2016 3:47:00 AM PDT by marktwain
Now, a felon in a "white collar crime" might be a different story - and especially someone who was set up and convicted by BATF&E is not likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm - but there have to be some limits to any discussion and not just "Felons deserve..."
I agree. If the courts in all their wisdom lets a guy back on the streets, that should be it.
I would make the caveat that violent felons should be tried and the. executed.
They can rot in prison, or they can accept limited rights as part of the conditions for release.
Here is a thought: don’t commit felonies.
Progressive Thinking 101:
1) Law-abiding citizens should not have guns
2) Convicted felons should have guns.
Yes that is the way it works now. We can likely make improvements.
The RKBA doesn’t exempt felons, or anyone else.
On the other hand, felons generally go right back to what they do best once released.
How do you derive that from the RKBA? Explain simply or with nuances how “the right to keep and bear arms” allows for the denial of the right to keep and bear arms to felons? If the exemption comes from the “it’s only reasonable” clause,” explain just where that clause is in the Constitution?
when this country was founded, the RKBA was denied murders simply because they were put to death now they do <20yrs and are back on the streets
Felons lost their rights including the RKBA when the US Court syste4m found them GUILTY of a felonious offense. It is the law.
This progressive push to give everyone a “do-over” is BS. It is no secret you decide to ignore the law and you are in line to give up your freedoms. Another little fact progressives ignore is that felons NEVER get caught on their first offense. By the time the system gets them, they have committed dozens of crimes that were never attributed to them. So they aren’t just being punished for the one offense, but for the dozens that they did also.
“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.
Absolutely. Actions have consequences. Well, they did when I was a kid.
From a strictly Constitutional standpoint, denying a felon the right to own guns is a violation of his Second Amendment rights. Nowhere does the 2A qualify that right; indeed, its language is “shall NOT be infringed.”
My argument does not take into account precedent or “reasonability.” It is put forth from a purely Constitutional perspective.
what exactly is a non-convicted felon ? Bill Ayers ?
felons are allowed to have guns ?
What next, they get to vote ?
America, what a country.
So all the gang-bangers in Chicago that have violent felony rap sheets a mile long should be allowed to legally carry weapons once they're released from jail?
On what planet?!
Bears repeating.
I agree, with the exception/reservation that many felonies really should be misdemeanors. “Felony” should be reserved for crimes of actual & grave harm, not paperwork/regulatory transgressions (say, cutting a shotgun barrel 1/2” too short).
There were different expectations then, and different ways of dealing with the lawless, and you're right - no such action as barring gun ownership would probably have been taken - the perp probably would not have either been free to recommit, or able to.
If I were king I would no more allow a convicted violent firearm offender legal access to a gun as allow a convicted pedophile/child abuser operate a day care center.
I wonder what opinion the founders would have of that?
My guess is, such an offender wouldn't be around to ask the question.
It’s derived from the principle that incarcerated felons have no rights: society has decided that in lieu of prolonged incarceration, we’ll let some out so long as they agree to certain rights-limiting terms (like “no guns”). The alternative is lifetime imprisonment on “too dangerous to let out” grounds, which is perfectly acceptable under the Constitution.
To wit: we can lock them up forever if you’d rather.
So you believe that the changed situation necessitates changing the Constitution by interpretation to fit the changed times? That way lies rendering the Constitution meaningless altogether and is how we got where we are now. It doesn’t matter who carries a gun. The law does not affect whether a felon carries a gun. It only punishes him unConstitutionally if he is caught with a gun and does not deter. If the felon uses the gun feloniously that is the crime and is punishable under the Constitution. It is like adding Hate to a crime. What does that accomplish beyond making people feel good? Does it deter hatred? NO. Stripping a felon of his RKBA is merely piling on. You don’t like the guy so he shouldn’t be allowed to carry or to engage in self defense. If his attacker kills him because he doesn’t have a gun well that’s his just deserts, right? You don’t like the RKBA? then work to get it Amended out of existence or to add whatever exceptions you prefer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.