Posted on 05/22/2004 4:54:17 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
See 51
States have the authority to make slaves out of persons convicted of major crimes (per Amendment XIII). As such, I see nothing unconstitutional about a state imposing any sort of restriction on a convicted felon, as part of the prescribed sentence.
At the federal level, the only type of legislation I can see as being legitimate would provide that a person who was forbidden in any state from purchasing or possessing firearms as a result of being convicted of certain types of crimes within that state may not purchase or possess firearms in any other state [such legislation authorized under the full faith and credit clause].
It was the red queen... Fer sure...
Allow me a question, if you will. Do the rights of the individual trump the will of the majority, in your opinion?
Can President Bush afford to lose 5% of his base?
If you've served your time, are elgible to vote and have not been adjudicated a violent offender, mentally incompetent or an addict I think you have the right to purchase and own firearms. Regards
This is simply silly. Your right to bear arms ends at my property line. There are no absolute rights. Free speech ends in the crowded movie house. There are reasonable public safety concerns that outweigh individual rights. And while I agree that current laws are more restrictive than necessary, it does not help the cause of repealing them by stating that all gun laws are unconstitutional.
When you see someone arrested for a non-violent "gun crime", i.e. merely possesion of a "prohibited weapon", what you are seeing is a crime being commited by an out of control illegitimate government.
Really? A "prohibited weapon" extends to lots of things. Would you really want Timothy McVeigh to be able to drive his U-Haul of fertilizer bomb material into your neighborhood? Until he detonated it, he was simply driving a U-Haul with a "prohibited weapon." It does not help the cause by arguing that indiviudals have an unlimited right to put others in an unreasonable amount of danger. It's a common law principle that has been around since Magna Carter.
I support more freedoms, such as the freedom of people to decide what kind of a society they are going to live in, all within Constitutional bounds.
CJ, those bounds on our RKBA's were set long ago by our 2nd amendment, which all of our states must honor as the 'law of the land'.
Ken H asked you:
"Let's say the people of Chicago, via the city council, decide they want their city free of guns. Should Chicago be permitted to ban its residents from owning and keeping guns in their homes?"
66 Ken H
Unless the Illinois Constitution says otherwise, then yes.
72
CJ, this answer contradicts your comment above that you - "support more freedoms, -- all within Constitutional bounds", -- seeing that the state of Illinois must also obey our 14th & 10th amendments prohibitions on its powers.
Really CJ, -- you don't need to be a lawyer to understand these concepts. - A little common sense will suffice.
shhhhhhhhhhhh
No salvation in that. I know guys who have been convicted of DUI on a bicycle, a mule, and a horse. Not fair, in my opinion. Neither the mule nor the horse were drunk and they were doing most of the driving.
I believe that is a Bill of Attainder, and Constitutionally Prohibited, but I'm no lawyer.
watch your border, maybe you need a man for a govenor
What kind of sick **** could eat a hot dog and watch someone die?
I believe that is a Bill of Attainder, and Constitutionally Prohibited, but I'm no lawyer.
No, it's not. A Bill of Attainder would apply punichsment without benefit of trial. A Bill of Attainder would be singling out a person or group for direct punishment by fiat of law. No trial. You could argue that the Japanese internment camps were Bills of Attainder if laws were simply passed ordering the confinement of Japanese Americans. I think a simple rule is if the Trial of Fact only needed to establish your identity to prove guilt, it is a bill of attainder law.
See http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
We need something. Janet is worse than imagineable.
OK. Thanks!
a cheap haircut at Central and Camelback by AJ'S?
I lived in the Coronado District
Absolutely. Otherwise there are no rights, only mob rule.
Short answer: Generally, yes, individual rights trump mob rule.
Long Answer: Individual rights are subject to common law restrictions. You cannot yell fire in the crowded movie house. You cannot bear arms on my property if I decide not to allow it. You cannot require others to endure an unreasonable risk of injury or death in order for you to excercise a right. NBC weapons are "arms", but if you keep them in your basement, you are creating an unreasonable risk to everyone else and your "right to keep and bear arms" is trumped by this.
Nope, not in a free republic with a right to bear arms & weapons, -- and to possess any other type of property. - See the 14th.
Would you really want Timothy McVeigh to be able to drive his U-Haul of fertilizer bomb material into your neighborhood?
Farmers, miners, road builders, gasoline & propane dealers, chemical suppliers, -- the list is endless, -- all drive trucks full of dangerous materials on our thoroughfares every day.
Face up to a fact of life, - anyone with the desire can be a 'mad bomber'.
Until he detonated it, he was simply driving a U-Haul with a "prohibited weapon."
Exactly the point. How can a free society inspect every truck for "bomb materials"? Sure, we can have unenforceable 'laws', but to what real purpose?
It does not help the cause by arguing that individuals have an unlimited right to put others in an unreasonable amount of danger.
Nor does it help the cause of liberty to argue that we can 'license' every aspect of life, and prohibit possession of every dangerous type of object or material.
It's a common law principle that has been around since Magna Carter.
The prohibition 'principle' is a very closely restricted governmental power under our constitution. -- Prohibiting booze required an amendment, soon repealed, as it obviously infringed upon many other rights, and led to scofflaw disorders.
Attempting to enact prohibitions our RKBA's is an even bigger disaster in the making.
The 'justice dept' is playing with fire with such uncalled-for infringements on our liberties.
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.