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 1-20, 21-39 next last
To: *bang_list
Bang
To: Beelzebubba
this will hit the supreme court?
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
To: Beelzebubba; Ajnin; Joe Brower; Badray; chuknospam; Concentrate; GeorgeWBiscuit; bybybill; ...
BUMP!!
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.
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
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
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
To: MrLeRoy
WoD is the justification for this law.
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
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
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
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
To: Oberon
Whoa, select fire
OFF! Sorry.
15
posted on
10/03/2002 8:53:48 AM PDT
by
Oberon
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.
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?
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.
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
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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson