Where in the 2nd Amendment is a felon banned?

[rootuser]

1. Point to jail time is partially to reform as well. Either through education or other means.

If the debt is a felony in lots of states, we don't believe the only debt owned is incarceration.

You try to create a circular logic that doesn't exist. You have convicted criminal, due process removal of certain rights or parts of rights as in the first and second ammendments and so on, follow by the possibility of restoration of those rights. Sounds like the process for Felons works pretty well to me.

This isn't Nazi germany where they are going to start with taking the felons and then move on to other people. Don't feel you need to stand up for the felons to some how protect your own rights.

Some of a felon's rights are restored upon release some are not. They are eased back in to society, which shows us the result.

There is no slipperly slope here, there has not been in 40 years, so I don't think you have much to worry about. Spend your energy on something that will make an impact rather than wondering if felons should get guns.

Remember: A criminal record IS a debt. That is what you should attempt to clean up.

[squee116]

If we believed that jail reformed criminals, why shouldn't they automatically be fully restored to all of their rights as citizens? That in itself is a circular argument. If we make a contract with ourselves that jail exists to reform, yet don't treat the patients of such reform as being reformed, what's the point?

If incarceration isn't the only debt "owed," how does treating ex-felons as second class citizens help them repay what's left?

By what metric do you measure success? Recidivism? "Feelings"? Like I said, I take no issue with removal of rights while serving a sentence. My questions address the aftermath.

"Possibility of restoration of rights" is my problem. It should be automatically restored, with the burden of proof being on the government to prove why an ex-felon's rights shouldn't be restored, and if they shouldn't, why is he/she being released?

My scenario was a half-joke. I've already heard talk at the LGS blaming the mom of Adam Lanza for a whack job's actions. She didn't willfully kill herself, and bestow a sudden bloodlust onto her son, in the hopes he'd massacre an elementary school class. Knowing what I know of the liberal agenda, it's only a matter of time before restricting guns in the households of the mentally ill becomes a "common sense solution."

And you are wrong about the slippery slope. It's been one LONG slope, from the beginning. We went from owning cannons and muskets, the premiere weapons of their day, to being relegated to "California approved" safe weapons and curios and relics. It's a bit of an exaggeration, but I think the main point holds true.

And a criminal record is whatever the government wants it to be. Criminals could pay off debts to individuals and society but still have a record. One of the many arguments that I've seen, and agree with, has to do with essentially making everything illegal, and allowing the government to cherry pick what we as citizens do wrong. I hardly believe that California passed 900 bills last year without making more activities illegal this year than last year.

[rootuser]

THere are too many laws I agree, and a lot of laws that do the same thing. That being said however, there is no multigenerational conspiracy to so deny people their rights in this case. I think that went out with Jim Crow.

I dont know about blaming Adam Lanza's mom. Obviously she screwed up and should not have let her son have access to those weapons, clearly she did that much wrong, but blame her? Seems a bit much.

The mentally ill and felons shouldn't have guns, period. The felon must use the system he broke to get back his or her rights. The best example I can think of is a friend of mine got busted for drugs stupidly about a decade ago. Since my friend was an emt and already headed into the military the judge offered him the chance to come back after his 6 yrs in the military was done and clear his record. He did that exactly that and the judge lived to his word and wiped his record clean. There was a road to redemption that had nothing to do with spending time in jail. Jail is only a part of the process IMHO. In particular with felons.

Maybe what you are worried about is what defines a felon. Work with your congress people to get the law changed if it is really boarderline and then the felon can petition to have their crime reduced and get them off the felon list.

[choprzrul]

Scenario:

A person is a real pyro and burns down an empty building. He is caught and convicted of felony arson. He serves his entire 5 year sentence and is released from prison. He is a felon for life.

Is our pyro, after completely paying his debt to society, banned from owning/using/possessing matches for life? Most likely 'no'.

Yet, he would be banned from owning/using/possessing firearms because of his felony status and could walk around with a lighter in his pocket.

Please explain how this makes any kind of Constitutional sense?

.

Please explain why an arsonist, who has paid his dept to society, can't use a firearm to defend his life???

.

[Tac driver]

This is a waste of a thread, time and Internet space

[CBR_rider]

This thread has piqued my interest (I've been lurking for a few months but obviously haven't posted until today). I agree with those who have already posted that the ability to deprive felons of their right to possess firearms would be argued from the standpoint that they were only deprived after due process. As a side note, I keep seeing people mentioning that felons should have a right to self defense and that the prohibition of their possession of firearms makes this impossible... How so? It's not a prohibition on learning Krav Maga, Aikido, using throwing knives, a cane, rocks, etc.. I understand those are not ideal weapons to be used against firearms, but firearms are not used in every crime. If a felon was that concerned about having a firearm for protection maybe they shouldn't have broken the law.

Here in California, it is quite rare for someone to pick up a felony conviction for one of those "lesser" felony crimes if that is truly their first brush with the law. It's not like every day someone is getting popped for stealing a $1,200 tv and suddenly they are convicted of felony theft with no priors. I would bet anyone $20 that the person could take a plea deal for a misdemeanor in almost every case.

My two cents..

[Safety1st]

What we have here is a mentality that our current system works well enough. Well, it doesn't. We have the world's largest prison population (and counting) and a relatively high crime rate. The system itself is biased against the poor, undereducted, and uninformed. But if you're rich and well connected, you can get away with almost anything. Just watch the new PBS documentary "The Untouchables" and tell me the system works.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/

[squee116]

This thread has piqued my interest (I've been lurking for a few months but obviously haven't posted until today). I agree with those who have already posted that the ability to deprive felons of their right to possess firearms would be argued from the standpoint that they were only deprived after due process. As a side note, I keep seeing people mentioning that felons should have a right to self defense and that the prohibition of their possession of firearms makes this impossible... How so? It's not a prohibition on learning Krav Maga, Aikido, using throwing knives, a cane, rocks, etc.. I understand those are not ideal weapons to be used against firearms, but firearms are not used in every crime. If a felon was that concerned about having a firearm for protection maybe they shouldn't have broken the law.

Here in California, it is quite rare for someone to pick up a felony conviction for one of those "lesser" felony crimes if that is truly their first brush with the law. It's not like every day someone is getting popped for stealing a $1,200 tv and suddenly they are convicted of felony theft with no priors. I would bet anyone $20 that the person could take a plea deal for a misdemeanor in almost every case.

My two cents..

Martial arts and melee weapons are hardly the beacons of self-defense. Regardless of the movies you see, a tiny old woman has no physical recourse against a large, younger assailant, other than a gun. Yoda-powered elderly will not be hopping around with light saber in hand. And yes, even felons can reach old age.

Why is there a focus on "common sense gun regulation" rather than the nature of incarceration itself? What does it mean to be imprisoned? What contract does society have with those who are judged by a jury to be guilty of a felony? Why should prisoners be on their best behavior if they are just released into the wider world as second class citizens? Is it morally fair for any one of us to assume the guilt of a party for a crime that hasn't taken place yet? The argument being made is, it's not fair to assume guns will be used to commit crimes so we can own them, but it's fair to assume that ex-felons will commit crimes with guns, so they can't. If you do not assume they will commit crimes, why bar them from owning a gun?

Even you admit that it's possible felons with non-violent or "non-major" offenses would be limited in their rights, even if few in number. Is it the goal of our laws to punish the low-risk future offenders to get to the high-risk potential offenders? Or is our law based on the idea that better 99 guilty men go free so that 1 innocent may not be wrongfully accused? Whenever a premise begins with an assumption of guilt, I become weary.

[rootuser]

Martial arts and melee weapons are hardly the beacons of self-defense. Regardless of the movies you see, a tiny old woman has no physical recourse against a large, younger assailant, other than a gun. Yoda-powered elderly will not be hopping around with light saber in hand. And yes, even felons can reach old age.

Why is there a focus on "common sense gun regulation" rather than the nature of incarceration itself? What does it mean to be imprisoned? What contract does society have with those who are judged by a jury to be guilty of a felony? Why should prisoners be on their best behavior if they are just released into the wider world as second class citizens? Is it morally fair for any one of us to assume the guilt of a party for a crime that hasn't taken place yet? The argument being made is, it's not fair to assume guns will be used to commit crimes so we can own them, but it's fair to assume that ex-felons will commit crimes with guns, so they can't. If you do not assume they will commit crimes, why bar them from owning a gun?

Even you admit that it's possible felons with non-violent or "non-major" offenses would be limited in their rights, even if few in number. Is it the goal of our laws to punish the low-risk future offenders to get to the high-risk potential offenders? Or is our law based on the idea that better 99 guilty men go free so that 1 innocent may not be wrongfully accused? Whenever a premise begins with an assumption of guilt, I become weary.

There is no assumption of guilt, its been proven in a court of law. There has been due process. There is due process to restore your rights as well. Convicted felons are in fact citizens with restricted rights by design. It has only been recently (last ~15 years) that we have seen the truth in sentancing laws begin to work and felons have been jailed for much longer periods of time. Many of them coming out of prison (or being released due to a relaxation of 3-strikes) have a long way to go to earn their rights back.

What needs to be parsed is what is a felony vs what is not. It's not a matter of felons shouldn't have guns. I would be willing to bet an overwhelming majority of Americans (we live in a Republic after all) do not want to see gun rights automatically restored to felons. If there are laws that are too technical and create felons out of people who should not be felons, there is the problem. They shouldn't have been felons in the first place, and the problem isn't that felons should or shouldn't have guns.

Felons being barred from guns is perfectly within the confines of the constitution as long as the removal of their right is done with due process of the law.

[Falconis]

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.

doesn't make it right. Just means they have the intent to break the law.

[RugerFan777]

Some of these prohibitions have been enforced on parolee's as well.

Even when a sentence is up there can still be restriction based on either a court judgement or a regulatory body.

Child molesters can be kept from schools and playgrounds.

Fraudsters can be denied a real estate license.

Certain types of commercial drivers licenses can be denied to those who have been committed of certain crimes.

The prohibition of selling a story of one's crime can certainly be enforced.

The Constitution was never written to preclude the effective punishment of criminals, and even the framers of the 2nd Amendment did not intend to extend that right to those who have committed various felonies (and remember, back then a felony was a SERIOUS crime, not the victimless BS you see in current times). A felony often demanded a death sentence.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Thus if your logic is true and correct a felons 5th amendment rights can be taken away as well?


"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Thus no jury, he could face double jeopardy, etc as long as he committed a felony first and was convicted?

See how stupid this sounds?

[stix213]

Returning constitutional rights to felons is a pretty low priority. Lower than banning the use of the duck face on Facebook pics.

[JoshuaS]

Rugerfan, you don't know the law, or constitutional law very well. You aren't helping yourself


"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The bolded part is held as not incorporated against the states. Except in rare case, no one in most states is indicted by a grandjury. We don't do that in CA. Instead a judge holds a preliminary hearing

The italics part seems what you are intent on ignoring. With due process of law, you can be deprived of liberty. Obviously, the right to due process cannot be taken away with due process. So no, your 5th amendment rights cannot be taken away because by definition that would be against due process (though, again, no right, except in federal cases, to a grand jury)

The question is not whether the right to travel, own firearms, associate with people, etc can be limited or removed. They can, duh. The question is whether a life prohibition violates cruel and unusual punishment, or violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

[squee116]

There is no assumption of guilt, its been proven in a court of law. There has been due process. There is due process to restore your rights as well. Convicted felons are in fact citizens with restricted rights by design. It has only been recently (last ~15 years) that we have seen the truth in sentancing laws begin to work and felons have been jailed for much longer periods of time. Many of them coming out of prison (or being released due to a relaxation of 3-strikes) have a long way to go to earn their rights back.

What needs to be parsed is what is a felony vs what is not. It's not a matter of felons shouldn't have guns. I would be willing to bet an overwhelming majority of Americans (we live in a Republic after all) do not want to see gun rights automatically restored to felons. If there are laws that are too technical and create felons out of people who should not be felons, there is the problem. They shouldn't have been felons in the first place, and the problem isn't that felons should or shouldn't have guns.

Felons being barred from guns is perfectly within the confines of the constitution as long as the removal of their right is done with due process of the law.

Felons are only convicted of past crimes. When their sentence is up, why do they continue to be assumed criminals? Their guilt was proven once, not in perpetuity.

[fizux]

We have the world's largest prison population (and counting) and a relatively high crime rate.

This sounds like the result of a overly-compassionate justice system, combined with good post-crime investigative capacity. In many other countries, lots of people never get to trial because they get schwacked before the handcuffs go on. Those people will not be released into the wild dozens of times to commit more felonies.

I would rather have a higher crime rate than lose due process. Just like I would rather have my 2A rights and freedom, rather than allow the government to confine us all to padded rooms for our own good.