Posted on 12/21/2007 9:45:54 AM PST by Revtwo
From #97
A Bill of Attainder is an act of the legislature that effects, or more persons in particular by name. Attainder is not the same as a Bill of Attainder. An ex post facto law is a criminal law that has effect prior to the date of enactment and publishing.
Re: A felon abrogated their own rights when they committed the crime..
"Only through the individual due process of their trial and sentencing."
No. Their right to vote and all other rights are lost and only remain by the grace of the legislature.
""Felon" includes the 20 y/o who gets caught having carnal knowledge of his 17 y/o "intended", along with a host of much more trivial offenses.
There's no "host" of "much more trivial issues" that are felonies! Your example only holds in some states. That's a separate issue.
" The law merely says "(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;" Doesn't say for how long. And it also doesn't define the terms, except to say they have the same meanings as in Title 18 Section 922(g)(4), which also doesn't define them, nor does section 921, which contains the definitions applying to Chapter 44 (Firearms) (section 921-931) Interestingly the review/appeal procedures. (section 101 c (2) A) only seem to apply to cases where a federal agency is the one doing the "adjudication". I'm sure most such "adjudications" are done at the state or local level.
I gave you where the terms are defined: 27CFR478.11, and you were given the essential requirements and process for involuntary commitment. The judicial act is indefinite and lasts until such time another court reverses it.
I thought not.
You got that right.
Slaves were not considered part of "the people". Felons however where, and got their rights restored after serving (usually) their full sentence. The notion of stripping them of their RKBA forever originated with the 1938 Federal Firearms Act. (it also instituted the notion of a federal license to sell arms. It cost $1).
Is not the law, it can be changed by executive fiat. That is by observing the proper procedure, publishing the proposed change or new regulation, and then taking public input (which can be ignored). Then after the proper amount of time, it's the new regulation.
Their right to vote and all other rights are lost and only remain by the grace of the legislature.
Including presumably their right to speak in public, their right to publish what they wish, and their right to exercise their religion?
With due respect, there is a problem with your interpretation.
The founders considered disarmament itself akin to slavery.
By their definition, to take away one's gun(s) was to enslave them, not just metaphorically but literally.
Read just about any of the founders, and there is sure to be a statement or reference about the nature of man to be free.
Even Jefferson, a slave owner, considered his owning slaves to be a "distasteful" necessity.
Concerning slaves and guns however, while maybe not common, many slaves were allowed to keep and bear arms, not only for hunting, but for protection of the owner's land and property.
And let's not forget that both free blacks and slaves fought for the south during the civil war.
Yeah, it is.
"it can be changed by executive fiat."
No. You ignored what I said about it above. The definition in 27CFR411 is based on the way medical opinions and those adjudications and commitments work in the US, not how the bureaucrats think it ought to be.
"Including presumably their right to speak in public, their right to publish what they wish, and their right to exercise their religion?"
That's correct. Note that in many states a felon can not profit from their crime by writing and speaking about it. The courts and legislatures have otherwise found that restricting their speech has no justification, or significant effect. Note that punishment is not a justification here. The idea is that a felon has proved some propensity for criminal behavior and an unwillingless to control it. With regard to religion, the courts have held that one's religion should not be largely stripped away, even in prison.
IOWs shooting off one's mouth has no real physical consequences with regard to health, safety, ect... Shooting off a gun does.
The NRA for years has tried to de-rail pro-gun stuff in Richmond, Virginia. Basically they were trying to discredit VCDL. I dropped my membership at that point. However, after the crap they tried to pull (and Wayne LaPierre admitted to trying) with the Heller case, I don’t care what happens in the future, the NRA will never get a dime from me or any kind of support. My rights are NOT theirs to compromise away and their attitude and actions offend me greatly. This road they have chosen to travel down will lead to civil war and bloodshed unless they stop and really fight.
ANY kind of gun control is bad for this nation and everyone in it. The NRA is not the gun owners friend and never has been. I know people in ILA who have said the exact same thing. The NRA is a professional lobbying group not a pro-gun group. Their support of the Veterans Disarmament Act proves it.
Oh yeah, just for note, I am not a member of any pro-gun or anti-gun organization. I do however assist with several pro-gun groups that truly do support everyones 2nd Amendment rights.
Mike
Same here in Atlanta.
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.