Posted on 05/11/2016 3:47:00 AM PDT by marktwain
You mean the same Supreme Court that interprets the words "right to privacy" and "women's health" to mean "Kill the baby if you want"?
Don't fall into the militia trap the left has set. The first part of the second amendment recognizes the need for and desirability of a citizen militia. No part of it limits keeping and bearing arms to that militia.
Of course they retain the right to self-defense... just not the right to own and carry a firearm, as a consequence of their misuse of that tool.
True enough.
***Convicted felons should have guns.***
Felons are NOT required to register their guns. It is a violation of “their” rights. Not so the law abiding public!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
The COnstitution does not make the RKBA a function of the militia. It uses the necessity of having a militia a reason for the RKBA. The RKBA is NOT restricted in the Constitution to citizens. It says the RKBA “shall not be infringed,” not that the citizens’ RKBA shall not be infringed.
I was rightfully upbraided by another poster, and to that I say “Mea culpa”.
The only correct answer here is that violent felons should not easily see the outside of the jail. To deny the right while incarcerated should not be controversial.
As a discussion point, however:
Would it be constitutional to make the forfeiture of the right an explicit part of the sentence?
Again, I’m just exploring the subject.
Only incarcerated individuals can be excluded from the RKBA according to the 13th AMD.
Fair enough, my FRiend. Have a great day.
No. The RKBA does not include a clause permitting that.
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.