Where in the 2nd Amendment is a felon banned?

[MindBuilder]

The Constitution allows the death penaly to be applied to those convicted of felonies. So of course any lesser sentence, such as life in prison or lifetime probation is also constitutional. The lifetime ban for fellons is basically the same as a sentence of lifetime probation, even though it is not called "probation". Thus it is constitutional.

Whether it is constitutional for felons who committed their crime before the felon ban came into effect is another issue. I don't think that is constitutional. But that law came into effect more than 40 years ago, so that is not an issue for very many felons today.

Whether felons SHOULD be banned is yet another question for which this is politically not a good time to debate. We need to secure gun rights, particularly carry rights, for non-felons before we even debate felons.

[HOGLEG]

"Well regulated" means well trained and equipped. You need a 1786 dictionary to properly define that term.

The 5th Amendment certainly states that one can lose freedoms so long as due process is followed.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

This! Was going to repeat it...

[1859sharps]

I am a strict constitutionalist.

No right is so absolute, so protected that once you show you will use your rights to violate the rights of others, you get to continue to have your rights. There is consequences to actions. losing you rights can be one of them.

I have NO issue what so ever with the concept of Felons loosing rights. A deeper examination of how this plays out today does raise questions about how we treat felons as a group, and how we decide what is a felony, who deserves a path to forgiveness etc. But there are for sure some types of felony's and behaviors that justify losing most if not all of your civil rights. if you need to loose them for life...maybe you shouldn't be out of jail. just a thought.

Rights are NOT meant to allow anarchy, crime or shield the predator from being held accountable.

Technically speaking, if I took your view and ran with it, I could take a fully automatic m240 and walk down the street shooting it at people, but not hitting them...and not be held accountable. that maybe "ultimate freedom", but it is certainly NOT a society I want to live in.

I get that gun owners are tired of being the scape goat...because I am. I get that gun owners are tired of infringements to the 2nd, because I am. But the reality is, NOT all infringements are going to be declared unconstitutional. And some infringements that are probably unconstitutional, still make sense.

The literal reading of the 2nd says I should be able to walk into a store, buy the arm of my choice, and carry it for my personal defense. Cash, carry, single shot, full auto, anything in between. I happen to agree with this ideal.

BUT I also live in the real world, and in the real world we do have to accept some infringements. Because frankly, the alternative isn't any better than living in a tyranny.

have some law makers and judges crossed the line and passed and allowed completely unconstitutional and unreasonable laws to be come law of the land and inappropriately infringe on 2nd amendment rights. ABSOLUTELY, without a doubt. But NOT all "infringements" are "equal".

Just like DiFi will probably have to learn to deal with ARs being protected by the 2nd and thus can not be be banned, we are also going to have to learn to live with some infringements. Background checks, criminal and mental health databases, license to carry, etc are things I SERIOUSLY doubt will ever be ruled unconstitutional. They also happen to make sense...common sense.

The whole felon thing...100% right on in some areas, in others absolutely needs to be reexamined. But the concept is not unconstitutional, and just makes sense.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

Why I am concerned, bc there is no exemption. I am a strict constitutionalist.
You can't be denied one part of the bill of rights and yet no one would think of banning the other parts.

Let me ask you something: Why are you pressing this point? Aside from engaging in an academic but arcane discussion about the Constitution, that is.

Do you realize that felon-in-possession laws are one of the strongest protections against gun control there are? In the first place, I would say a majority of gun owners would agree with such restrictions. And moreover, surely you recognize that such laws provide a powerful, almost unassailable argument against further gun laws: Any time a person commits a crime with a gun, and that person is a felon, it demonstrates, front-and-center, the futility of laws prohibiting a class or type of firearm, since the laws did not prevent the offender from obtaining and using a weapon anyway.

But if the rhetorical point you are trying to make is that Second Amendment rights are somehow "lesser" rights in the panoply of rights recognized by the framers, I think your point is well taken. And the quick answer is that felon-in-possession laws were developed long before the Second Amendment was both found to be an individual right, and incorporated to the states, which is very recent law. Thus, Second Amendment jurisprudence has a lot of catching up to do. But otherwise, I question the wisdom of pressing this point.

[bohoki]

i am just confused as to why if the government thinks you are too dangerous to own a gun why are they not behind bars

[sreiter]

To Lazy to look up exact place and verbiage, but there is a blurb about congress being able to create laws for the common good/promote general welfare.

[rudynix]

I find it very disturbing when I see gunowners stating that "well regulated" is the reason for felons not being allowed to possess firearms. If you take it in that context, "well regulated" could also mean regulating the "law abiding" citizen to a single shot bolt gun and nothing else. Seems like there are many that interpret the Constitution like a typical "Liberal".

[JoshuaS]

I am astonished by the sheer legal ignorance of some people in this thread. "Strict constitutionalist" my arse. People think they can just read the Constitution and without any sense of law figure out all and every question. Newsflash, it isn't a self-interpreting document. No such thing. Of course some matters are far clearer and obvious than others.

Take freedom of religion. Say I am from some country that still does human sacrifice, and I bring my religion with me. Should I be allowed to do that here? Are Mormons allowed polygamy? In the real world the has to be a measure and a way to discriminate between different laws and rights. Does your right to free speech mean you can have an orgy in the local park as a demonstration of free love?

Now the 1st amendment was originally tied to just the federal government. Heck that is true of the bill of rights in general (interesting tidbit, you have no right to be indicted by a grandjury except for federal cases. That right, stated explicitly for felonies and capital offenses, is held to not be incorporated). That being the case the Founders could rely on the states to regulate excesses.

But look at it another way. If you right a law very specifically, with every exception you can think of, what have you done? You will certainly miss some, further you are likely to create a rubric of limiting the right and erring on the side of prosecution. Whereas if a right is stated generally, any exception (try crying fire in a movie theater) has to be argued much more forcefully.

That doesn't mean there are or shouldn't be exceptions. Rights (well some of them) are absolute in that they are not granted by the government, but through nature (and nature's God) and insofar as these are in the Constitution it is mere recognition of reality. But no right is absolute in the sense that there are no limits, no boundaries, no way of losing them. We execute certain criminals. That is a forfeiture of all rights. Only justifiable because by their acts they have debased themselves below human nature

Or take property rights. I have the right to own property (personal, real and productive), but there are limitations to that. I cannot use my property in a way that injures others, their property or communal property (like public roads). Or do you think I could be able to burn toxic waste in a residential area?

Looking at the case of felons and guns, if we assume (arguendo) that we are talking about felons under the common law definition, namely atrocious, forcible acts (which is what felony means sometimes in law, e.g. in self-defense laws here in CA), then you better bet that their right to arm themselves ends right then and there. Put it this way, I have the right to work and earn money. I have this right because I must be able to provide for myself reasonably (and living off the state or charity is childlike, and not becoming a free person). But my right to work is conditioned by my abilities and by my effort. If I refuse to get qualified for a better job, then I cannot claim any injustice. I can claim no injustice, too, if I abuse my employer by being a bad employee and he fires me. I have the right to work, but that right exists in the context of right action, providing for myself through diligent labor.

Now I have the right to self-defense. Even the most evil felon has this right (and for this reason, under the imminent threat of death or some other atrocious act to himself or another, even a felon does not break the law by possessing a gun while that threat exists, cf People v. King). And the right to bear arms is ordered to that right, which is ordered to the good of self-preservation, and towards the common good (defense of others and country). When I violently act against others and the common good, I have vitiated that order, and lacking the orientation to the good, I thereby lose my rights over the means to that end. Just as a parent has a right to raise his child, but when he abuses his child vitiates the good for which that right exists, and loses that right.

Now we can argue whether all people who have committed a crime that could potentially carry a sentence of a year or more should be prohibited. But that some should is a no-brainer. I hope this wasn't too long.

[ronlglock]

Denying felons the ability to own a firearm is a common sense regulation.

On the other hand, weren't the founding fathers all felons of one kind of another for treason against the government? I'm not saying that this is not common sense, just that the OP asked about the 2A.

[JoshuaS]

I think I should add, that it may be reasonable, on a constitutional basis, to argue that punishments, including lifetime prohibition on owning firearms, be left to the states (except in federal cases of course)

Felons were banned from own handguns in CA long before the federal felon ban

[radioman]

I am looking for language in the 2nd were a felon can no bear arms or his right may be infringed? If this is true to the 2nd amendment then why doesn't he lose his freedom of speech or religion?

You will find it a the gun control act of 1968

[dfletcher]

Short term or forever?

Taken away forever or suspended until completion of sentence?

Are you arguing that once released, a felon is a slave and can never again own property?

Food, money and clothing are property. So if a law is passed doing exactly that - a felon is simply to be released into the streets naked to starve and or freeze to death?

Tackle it from the other angle...if a felons are deprived of their rights after completion of their sentence - are they obligated to be called up for Selective Service, or report as a member of the militia per request of the Governor of their state? Can they be subpoened to be a witness in a trial or be called as a juror? Can they be required to join the fire line for a county fighting a grass fire?

As noted by another poster already, our rights come from higher up - not the state.

Whenever I hear someone say, "I'm a Constitutionalist, courts practice strick scrutiny, it's okay to ban a felon from exercising certain rights..."

My thought is, "There's another statist who wants a convenience..."

=8-)

I wasn't arguing for anything. I was recounting in a very basic fashion that courts use due process to deprive a person of certain rights. I expected my closing line would have made that clear, perhaps I was mistaken. The OP asked a question referencing the 2nd Amendment only and it seems to me the answer is found outside the 2nd Amendment. It's found in other amendments and laws passed by Congress. Looking to the 2nd only does not provide the answer.

[dfletcher]

A child molester with a history of predatory behavior on the internet may be restricted from using the internet until his sentence is complete but that same restriction cannot be applied to a convicted robber because it violates his 1st Amendment rights. I fail to see how a lifetime loss of 2nd Amendment rights can be applied to say a computer hacker once his or her sentence has been completed.

Regarding rights restricted after sentence is served, I agree there has been and ought to be some sort of relationship between continuing to deny a right and the offense committed. I think it's possible to readily agree on all sorts of non-violent felony offenses that could allow for a person to have his 2nd Amendment rights restored - although I personally believe computer hackers deserve the death penalty - destructive little weenies ....

Were we to travel down this path I think quite a challenge would eventually be presented as to where that "go/no go" line is drawn. Should someone who merely possesses child porn be prohibited for life? As a practical matter, safe to say society's answer is going to be "heck yes" but at some point that sort of thing is going to be challenged, yes?

[kotetu]

I always find it strange that within a group of people that argues so strongly against the anti-2A gun grabbers/banners, often stating that "criminals don't follow the laws," there still exist those that think it's "common sense" to have laws prohibiting felons from owning guns. We already know such laws are nonsense rigmarole that won't work. Why would anyone consider it common sense?

[vector16]

Its about the Constitution, not emotion. Every felon has a gun anyways. I work in a prison, everyone felon I have ever talked to says they will have a gun when they get out.

AND in Obama get his way the only people that will have guns are the criminals. Why are you trying to find this so badly. The guns that they are able to get are all stolen. That in itself if a felony. If a felon is in possession of a firearm they should be executed, no excuses!

her is your answer:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens the right to bear arms. Although there has been debate whether the amendment guarantees the right to own handguns or to keep unregistered weapons, it is well settled that owning a hunting rifle is a Constitutionally protected right. Title 18, Section 922(g) of the U.S. Code specifically prohibits anyone with a felony conviction from owning or possessing a firearm, thus excluding felons from Second Amendment protection.