Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Felons' Gun Rights at Issue at High Court
Legal Times ^ | 10-03-2002 | Jim Oliphant

Posted on 10/03/2002 8:17:10 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

1 posted on 10/03/2002 8:17:10 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang
2 posted on 10/03/2002 8:17:30 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
this will hit the supreme court?
3 posted on 10/03/2002 8:22:43 AM PDT by Anotherpundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Gosh, no kidding - this administration isn't really as gun friendly as they claim? Politicians lie?
4 posted on 10/03/2002 8:23:11 AM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba; Ajnin; Joe Brower; Badray; chuknospam; Concentrate; GeorgeWBiscuit; bybybill; ...
BUMP!!
5 posted on 10/03/2002 8:27:13 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Maddeningly, the article cites none of (1) the U.S. statute granting ATF the ability to restore nonviolation of RKBA, (2) any other relevant US Code, or (3) any relevant court cases.

Besides this flaw, the article is poorly written.

That said, there seems to be a conflict in the law - language that provides a process, yet a lack of funding for it.

6 posted on 10/03/2002 8:28:09 AM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: m1911
"Like it or not, DOJ has to support the law," Gottlieb says. In fact, Gottlieb says, the Justice Department brief provides case law that he claims supports Bean's contention that federal courts have the power to restore gun rights.

Read the entire article, dummy.

7 posted on 10/03/2002 8:32:04 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: m1911
It's hard enough to preserve Second Amendment rights for non-felon citizens, I'm not going to bat for a convicted felon. Don't give the gun-grabbers bad examples to use against us. I know the Constitution is for all of us, but I like to choose my battles that don't lead to a Pyrrhic victory.
8 posted on 10/03/2002 8:36:45 AM PDT by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Stop bumping non-WOD-related posts to the Wod_list. It's abusive and obnoxious.
9 posted on 10/03/2002 8:41:18 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
WoD is the justification for this law.
10 posted on 10/03/2002 8:43:57 AM PDT by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Before the high court, the Justice Department has taken the stance that a federal court holds no power to make the determination that a felon can regain gun privileges.

In other words, a bureau of political appointees should not be required to be answerable to a federal court?

I don't like that precedent one bit.

11 posted on 10/03/2002 8:52:40 AM PDT by Oberon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Before the high court, the Justice Department has taken the stance that a federal court holds no power to make the determination that a felon can regain gun privileges.

In other words, a bureau of political appointees should not be required to be answerable to a federal court?

I don't like that precedent one bit.

12 posted on 10/03/2002 8:53:04 AM PDT by Oberon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Before the high court, the Justice Department has taken the stance that a federal court holds no power to make the determination that a felon can regain gun privileges.

In other words, a bureau of political appointees should not be required to be answerable to a federal court?

I don't like that precedent one bit.

13 posted on 10/03/2002 8:53:05 AM PDT by Oberon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Before the high court, the Justice Department has taken the stance that a federal court holds no power to make the determination that a felon can regain gun privileges.

In other words, a bureau of political appointees should not be required to be answerable to a federal court?

I don't like that precedent one bit.

14 posted on 10/03/2002 8:53:05 AM PDT by Oberon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
Whoa, select fire OFF!

Sorry.

15 posted on 10/03/2002 8:53:48 AM PDT by Oberon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
He is not a "convicted felon" in my mind, any more than an American lady who is sentenced for not wearing a burkha in a Muslim country.

And when the big government anti-gun thugs start making lots of ordinary things into felonies (like selling the wrong species of dried plant material, or having a rifle with a slightly short buttstock) then they can arbitrarily deny citizens their right to keep and bear arms.

The only felons that should permanantly be denied the right to keep and bear arms are those who have received the death penalty. Those who receive lesser sentences should have their RKBA suspended for the duration of their incarceration.

If they can't be trusted with guns, they can't be trusted in society, since the recidivists WILL get guns if they want to.
16 posted on 10/03/2002 9:05:31 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Bean was convicted of a felony in a foreign country for a practice that is perfectly legal here. If someone has been convicted of practicing Christianity in Saudi Arabia would their rights also be forfeited?
17 posted on 10/03/2002 9:08:08 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: m1911
That is why it is vitally important that the AW ban NEVER come up for an extension vote. Bush WILL NOT protect your rights to own a Homeland Defense Rifle.
18 posted on 10/03/2002 9:09:31 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
I will go to bat for convicted felons, but only those convicted of non-violent felonies. There is no good reason to deny them the right to self defense.
19 posted on 10/03/2002 9:24:08 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
It's hard enough to preserve Second Amendment rights for non-felon citizens, I'm not going to bat for a convicted felon

When they came for the wrongly convicted felons, I said nothing, for I wasn't a wrongly convicted felon. The facts in this case are that the "conviction" wasn't even in the US, and the "crime" wouldn't be a crime in the US. Not only that, but as I understand it, it's not even a felony in Mexico any longer.

Besides the most amazingly trivial transgressions are often felonies these days. The law also applies to certain misdomeaners, where the *potential* penalty, as opposed to the one imposed by the court, is heavy enough, something like a year or more in jail, IIRC.

20 posted on 10/03/2002 9:28:24 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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