Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why is a Felon barred from owning a firearm yet is allowed to sit in Congress?

Posted on 04/24/2012 6:12:49 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA

I was driving today and thinking of the insanity of laws which disallow the ownership of a firearm to felons, yet does NOT disallow Congresscritters from serving in Congress. One can do much more damage as a Congressperson than a person holding a firearm.

Someone should grab this issue and use this against them. Push a law forward. If gun owners are going to be held to certain standards, why not those who hold the highest office in the land?

/.rant off


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: banglist; vanity

1 posted on 04/24/2012 6:12:55 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

A felon with a weapon is a whole lot less dangerous than one sitting in congress.


2 posted on 04/24/2012 6:14:05 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Because the electorate is supposed to be smart enough not to elect felons to Congress.


3 posted on 04/24/2012 6:14:42 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Probably the same reason why they allow people to elect the President of the United States without showing a photo ID but they won’t sell you a pack of smokes without one.


4 posted on 04/24/2012 6:15:16 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (It's time for the 47% to start paying their "fair share" of income taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

In most states, once you have served your time and a period of years have elapsed since your conviction, you are allowed to own firearms.

Additionally, if your sentencing for a felony indicates that after serving your sentence your civil rights are restored, you can own firearms again.

Most felons convicted of gun violations are still on probation, parole, or have not been past the end of their sentence for a long enough time to avoid being charged with a possession crime.


5 posted on 04/24/2012 6:16:51 PM PDT by dewawi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Because, otherwise, Congress would make it a felony not to be a member of congress, thus guaranteeing their jobs for life.
6 posted on 04/24/2012 6:22:15 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

For a very good reason, so that candidates cannot be barred from office after bogus felony convictions. There are several twists and turns to this.

1) It was assumed that at some point, a corrupt judge would attempt to block candidates by holding a sham trial and convicting them just before the election, so that they would be disqualified, knowing full well that the conviction would be overturned on appeal.

2) It was also assumed that somebody would create a corrupt congressional district, to guarantee the election of a scoundrel or real criminal to congress. For this reason, both the House and the Senate can both refuse to seat elected candidates, and they can boot them out of the body, stripping them of their seat.

This happened in a big way during and after the Civil War.

3) Beyond that, the assumption is that the people are smart enough to choose their own representatives, based on their own judgment, as long as the candidate is qualified. And federal judges are loathe to second guess the public about who they want in office.

Ironically, while a convicted felon can be elected to congress, this does not mean that his right to vote in his own election, or possess a gun, sit on a jury, or hold *state* public office has been restored. Depending on his state.


7 posted on 04/24/2012 6:31:15 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("It is already like a government job," he said, "but with goats." -- Iranian goat smuggler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Red in Blue PA
I was driving today and thinking of the insanity of laws which disallow the ownership of a firearm to felons, yet does NOT disallow Congresscritters from serving in Congress.

I addressed this exact issue a while back. The most recent post was about a year ago to FReeper "oldleft."

Let's go again...





The fact is, the 2nd Amendment isn't very clearly written.

One could say that however, I believe it is not clearly understood by our current crop of communist agenda wanna-be's that have been "educated" in the liberal public schools and colleges.

In that environment we see a great deal of relativism where the phrase "shall not be infringed" is relatively interpreted as "mostly, unless I want to." They want to believe they can remove that nail from the plank and hammer it back in at a location that allows them to go ahead and severely infringe a Citizen's Second Amendment Rights as they see fit. THEN they point to their law as say "see, that is reasonable and common sense."

There is FAR too much focus on The Second Amendment in regards to it being cherry-picked for "abuse by excuse." The anti-American control addicts, otherwise known as communist agenda liberals, will abuse Second Amendment rights on ANY excuse.

Here is an example that makes it clear.

Example... You are a hot headed little you-know-what in your early 20's and caused a commotion and bit of a panic at the movies. Lots of folks leave "immediately" and as a result a kid gets a twisted ankle. Theater management calls for medical assistance to cover their liability, paramedics see what happened, call the local cops, cops arrest hot head for incitement to riot, public endangerment, injury to a minor, etc, etc.

End result, felony.

Does the hot head get a lifetime infringement of their FIRST Amendment rights or their SECOND Amendment rights?

The crime committed was one of vocalizing a false statement as factual.

But does that prevent said hothead from making a political speech? Ten, twenty, thirty years after the fact?

It is the very same tool used to commit the original crime, right?

Or for that matter does the hot head get a lifetime infringement (banishment) for ANY of their enumerated constitutional rights OTHER than the Second?

Nooooo, not that! The ranks of slimy politicians would be decimated by such equal justice.

No no no, only the Second Amendment Right to be A-R-M-E-D is the recipient of such blatant un-American and un-Constitutional attack.

The attack (infringements under color of law) on American Citizens Second Amendment Rights in which it is clearly and specifically stated "do not infringe here" is about as an un-American act as any I can think of, be it perpetrated by a thief stealing a citizens firearms or a thief depriving an American Citizen of their Unalienable Rights "under color of law."

Both should be the ones in prison, not the poor schmuck that flipped a coin in order to determine who will pay the bill at a restaurant. Or to hold a yard sale without first obtaining a business license. Or put an incorrect date or salary of a home loan application.

Or on a subject a bit closer to us all, not forking over piles of cash for ObamaCare.

There is no reason or indication that any regulation restricting OR allowing under certain conditions the possession of arms. There NEVER should have been any "concealed carry" permits as that only legitimizes the previous law or regulation restricting or infringing on a Citizen's Second Amendment rights.

If the Founding Fathers meant for there to be laws restricting an American Citizen of their right to freely and without restraint posses arms they would have clearly written it into the text of the Amendment just like they did in these...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law

Amendment III
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment XII
no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny

And these...

AMENDMENT XIII
AMENDMENT XIV
AMENDMENT XV
AMENDMENT XVI
AMENDMENT XVIII
AMENDMENT XIX
AMENDMENT XXIII
AMENDMENT XXVI

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear here.

It is:

"shall not be infringed"

Not according to the rules of the common law
Not but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Not but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation
Not without due process of law
Not Congress shall have power to enforce this
Not The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation
Not unless they shall by law
Not Congress may by law
Not and shall not prevent
Not No law

Yeah, the Founding Fathers had every single opportunity for YEARS to put such a stipulation in the Second Amendment.

What do we see there?



"shall not be infringed"

"shall not be infringed"

"shall not be infringed"

There never was any original intent for laws restricting (infringing) OR allowing (concealed carry "permits") regarding arms.

It is a quite futile effort to convince me that what I see in front of me is not what was meant.

However, I am confident that some mealy-mouthed, smiley-faced BS artist of various occupation will be firmly convinced that I am wrong or that they can change my mind.

.

53 posted on 06/08/2011 10:49:16 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)

9 posted on 04/24/2012 6:51:08 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Same reason it is nearly impossible to get a decent job without going through a background check...yet you can be elected to congress and even become President without one.

Elected officials are not held to the same standard because the theory is the voters vet candidates before voting for them. Voters really need to be educated before voting, but how to do that is the question.

I was on our local election board for several years and many would come to vote and ask me who they should vote for; at the polling place- as they were entering the booth. Of course I wasn’t allowed to tell them. But they were so unprepared to vote, they would say things like- I will just vote for so and so because his/her name is familiar.


10 posted on 04/24/2012 6:52:23 PM PDT by Tammy8 (~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLI; oldleft

Your-name-in-a-post-rule ping.

TLI

.


11 posted on 04/24/2012 6:54:05 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

I’m not sure Congressmen should be allowed to have guns. I’m not sure they should have any means of self-defense or even a right to self-defense. Citizens should be allowed to throw vegetables (but only soft vegetables) at Congressmen.


12 posted on 04/24/2012 6:58:10 PM PDT by Tau Food
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Because politicians rightly realize that the company of a felon is, for a politician, congenial while the company of an armed taxpayer is downright threatening.


13 posted on 04/24/2012 7:07:41 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (I like Obamacare because Granny signed the will and I need the cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

It really amounts to the fact that most Americans are too stupid to vote. Yes, America has run its course with this trial Democracy thing...

When the majority of Americans are on the dole, how do you really expect otherwise..


14 posted on 04/24/2012 7:13:51 PM PDT by Deagle (nOT Get a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

IMHO, after a felon is released from the “criminal” justice system (q. marks placed deliberately) he should have the same right to defend his rights as other citizens.

Either the felon is willing and able to regulate his/her own behavior or not.

If not, exile or execute them, as there is no right to be a criminal preying on the American public.


15 posted on 04/24/2012 7:33:31 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

There are no background checks on Members of Congress once they are elected. Their files are sealed.

It is up to the press (ha, ha) to uncover the hidden backgrounds, such as John Conyers relations to the Communist Party; Bobby Rush and his open leadership of the cop-killing Black Panther Party, Cynthia McKinney’s ties to both communist and jihadist groups here and abroad; Bill Ayers’ ties to communists overseas; the Soviet agent of influence in Obama’s political background, etc.

Interestingly, some congressional committee files on old CPUSA members of Congress are missing. Why am I not surprised.


16 posted on 04/24/2012 8:01:46 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

A sheese Red, they are all crooks in congress!! Did you not know this?


17 posted on 04/24/2012 8:35:46 PM PDT by Morgana (I only come here to see what happens next. It normally does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Probably the same reason why they allow people to elect the President of the United States without showing a photo ID but they won’t sell you a pack of smokes without one.
And they elected a president that has never shown a valid id...no real BC probably means no real ID either.
We are past the edge people...Road Runner and Wile E Coyote come to mind...

USofA is about to get some gravity lessons.
18 posted on 04/24/2012 9:20:04 PM PDT by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: An American!

I agree.


19 posted on 04/24/2012 10:19:48 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (It's time for the 47% to start paying their "fair share" of income taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Because most Congressional Representatives and Senators are unindicted and unconvicted felons?


20 posted on 04/25/2012 12:25:42 AM PDT by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Hell, I think anyone who runs for public office should have to pass a simple credit check and be qualified to buy a car.

The public would be (should be) absolutely outraged to find out how many elected, and re-elected, pols have bad credit.
Bunch of worthless skunks IMO.
21 posted on 04/25/2012 3:45:29 AM PDT by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
1) It was assumed that at some point, a corrupt judge would attempt to block candidates by holding a sham trial and convicting them just before the election, so that they would be disqualified, knowing full well that the conviction would be overturned on appeal.

This makes no sense; the jury convicts, not the judge; further, in *ALL* criminal trials the defendant has the right to a jury trial. (6th Amendment)

2) It was also assumed that somebody would create a corrupt congressional district, to guarantee the election of a scoundrel or real criminal to congress. For this reason, both the House and the Senate can both refuse to seat elected candidates, and they can boot them out of the body, stripping them of their seat.

This sounds more reasonable.

3) Beyond that, the assumption is that the people are smart enough to choose their own representatives, based on their own judgment, as long as the candidate is qualified. And federal judges are loathe to second guess the public about who they want in office.

Except, say, when allowing the infinite-recounts to proceed.

22 posted on 04/25/2012 9:28:32 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Even the founding fathers had faith that humanities scoundrels would come through in a pinch to bias elections. There had been a whole litany of such abuses in Britain even before the founding of the republic.

And they were right, more than they knew. The innovative scoundrels in America didn’t miss a beat in trying to cheat in every way imaginable. The US didn’t have a secret, or “Australian” ballot until 1884-’91, which meant that everybody knew how you voted as soon as you did. If you voted “the right way”, you might get a glass of beer; “the wrong way”, punched in the nose. It was “festive”, to say the least.

More to the point, the only way a jury matters is if you want to *really* convict somebody. Otherwise the conviction would be quickly overturned on appeal. After the election. A judge might order a jury of a dozen drunk friends of his, etc. ad nauseum.

There could be a thick book on the election cheats devised over the years. No stone left unturned.


23 posted on 04/25/2012 10:39:58 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("It is already like a government job," he said, "but with goats." -- Iranian goat smuggler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Don’t we have a felon in Congress now? I forget his name... From Florida I think, he used to be a judge...


24 posted on 04/25/2012 10:43:59 AM PDT by DrewsMum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson