Losing the right to be able to buy guns for the rest of your life.

I agree, that is why I added the rest to address the vilont people, just give them life and if we let them out, put them on probation for life

once they have done their sentence, they start a new in society... restricting them from voting and protecting their homes and families makes no sense if everyone has a "right" to those things, now if we want to remove that "right" from the constitution and make it a "privilege" like driving a car.... then it would be a different story

.

 

that would be like saying freedom of speech is not being taken away if government tells you what you can and can't say

 

You raise another issue. I've read that 94% of all criminal convictions are based upon plea bargians. These convictions are achieved because the prosecution will file the most serious possible charge where a conviction in not a certainty to use as a form of coercion, or use other forms of coercion, to obtain a plea bargain to a lesser offense. For examply filing a 2nd degree murder charge to coerce the accused into accepting a plea bargian for voluntary manslaughter or, as in the infamous case of Tommy Chong, threatening to prosecute his wife if Tommy Chong didn't plead guilty.

This practice by prosecutors is a great injustice to both the accused and to society. If a person really did commit 2nd degree murder then it harms society if the accused is only convicted for manslaughter. If the accused is innocent then it's wrong for them to be coerced into pleading guilty to the lesser offense.

What's driving this system of plea bargains are the mandatory sentencing guidelines imposed by legislatures. A person facing a possible wrongful conviction for 2nd degree murder where they might be forced to spend 20-life is going to influenced into plea bargianing it down to manslaugher that may only have a 2-10 sentencing guideline.

Coercion should not exist in our criminal justice system nor should our criminal justice system allow a person that committed a greater offense to "get off lightly" by pleading guilty to a lesser charge. The person should be prosecuted for the crime they committed and there should be no compromise.

It also addresses that a person's civil rights are being denied and more often than not the right denied is completely unrelated to the crime itself. The loss of the civil right to own firearms or, even more important, the civil right to vote, when those rights are unrelated in any manner to a criminal act is simply wrong.

Once again this relates to "legislatve" measures that have been imposed in almost all cases where the "justice" has been taken out of the hands of the Court. We need a separation of powers between the Courts an the Legislature and these laws cross those lines where the members of the legislature, completely ignorant of the actual criminal act committed by the person, are imposing the sentence. That's also simply wrong. Let the convicted face justice for the crime they actually committed and let the Court determine the "justice" in each case.

 

For pragmatic reasons based upon compelling arguments the government can and does limit what you can and can't say. In general the compelling argument relates to issues of "public safety" such as the prohibitions against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater which could cause panic resulting in serious injuries and potentiallly death or with cases of inciting to riot that could result in serious injuries and death.

Imposing limited restrictions based upon compelling arguments to our Freedom to Exercise and Inalienable Right does not disparage or deny us the overall Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right. Key to this is that the restriction upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right should always be to the least extent possible to fulfill a necessity established by the compelling argument.

We can, for example, stand on a "stump" in a public park an spout pretty much anything we want so long as we don't attempt to incite a riot.

We can, and should be allowed to own firearms so long as we don't endanger the "public safety" with them. That is why I oppose any requirement for licensing of the person or registration of firearms that are not taken out into the public. On the flip side as soon as you carry a firearm into public you do represent a threat to the public safety and reasonable and pragmatic regulations to address that threat to the public safety are both rational and desirable.

The analogy of owning and driving a car is very applicable. You can own an unregistered vehicle and drive it anyway you want without a license so long as you don't take it out on the public roads. Only when you decide you want to drive on the public roads are you required to have a drivers license, register the automobile, and follow the traffic laws.

Public v Private is the difference with automobiles and the same condition is applicable with firearms.

 

you make some good points, we do that with guns too, no guns in courtroom, airplanes, ect....

agree, I also do not support concealed carry licenses, that should be the default way to carry a firearm, it's the polite way to carry

.

 

They can still apply to get their right to own guns back. Do not commit a felony, especially a violent felony, and you have nothing to worry about. So sorry but I really do not have any sympathy for those convicted of felonies losing their legal gun rights. That said I know two people that have been convicted of a felony and both managed to get their rights restored, so me thinks this is a lot to do about nothing.

 

It prevents infringement by the federal government, but not by the States. However, the recent era of Supreme Court decisions has extended the protections in the Bill of Rights, forcing it onto the States. Yet this interpretation poses a problem then, because to be consistent one would also need to hold that the Second Amendment applies to the States.

The clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." is an explanatory clause, not a conditional clause. It does not affect the rest of the Amendment, but adds additional clarification. The "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" still stands by itself. But what it meant is that the right should not be infringed under the Constitution of the United States. But the Powers under individual State constitutions are much more expansive.

As to what exactly the federal government should be able to require from gun owners without "infringing" on their rights is a murky constitutional issue.

 

Where in the Second Amendment does it estalish that this is a matter for either state or federal government? Lest you also forget the states and the people, under the 10th Amendment, have no authority (power) to do anything prohibited by the US Constitution.

Yes, the "dependent" clause in the 2nd Amendment does provide clarification because the 2nd Amendment was actually based upon the "militias" of the states and was also founded upon racism of the time. When the Constitution was ratified the Slave States used "militias" to capture escaped slaves an it was this need for "state militias" that actually drove the arguments behind the wording and clarification included in the 2nd Amendment.

As I've also note the 2nd Amenment refers to "arms" and not "firearms" and not all "arms" are acceptable under any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. We don't allow individuals to own nuclear weapons for example and that is reasonable "regulation" under the 2nd Amendment's provisions. If we wanted to apply "original intent" to the 2nd Amendment it would limit "firearms" to black powder muzzle-loading muskets and cannons because that's the only "firearms" that existed at the time.

Don't get me wrong because I support the right of the people to own modern firearms but I also understand the US Constitution and how it's being interpreted by the Supreme Court. Not all gun control regulations comply with the letter or intent of the 2nd Amendment nor can they be argued for based upon a rational basis. That does not imply that all regulations are unconstitutional nor that a lack of regulation would ever be desirable in America. There are compelling argument based upon the "public safety" but laws such as "assault weapons bans" that are based solely upon "appearance" because the firerarm "looks scary" as opposed to "functionality" lack any rational basis.

I could, for example, provide a valid argument using functionality in comparing a ,223 Bushmaster that makes it different from a .223 Remington hunting rifle but I don't believe the functional difference is significant enough to warrant prohibiting the Bushmaster from sale.

But this takes us off topic which is more specifically related to the denial of the right to "keep and bear arms" that many non-violent ex-felons face or that same denial to non-citizens that are also protected by the 2nd Amendment which refers to the "people" and not the "citizens" (a subgroup of the People) of the United States.

We rightfully note that the denial of the right to keep and bear arms for non-violent ex-felons under the law is unjustifiable but from a Constitutional perspective the denial of the same right to keep and bear arms for non-citizen immigrants to the United States is even a greater concern from my perspective. Non-citizen immigrants to the United States are just as much Americans as US citizens under the US Constitution and, what I see as racially motivated, the denial of their Rights both when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms and the right to vote under the US Constitution bothers me deeply as an American citizen.

 

A literal translation of the Second Amendment, combined with the Supremacy clause could indeed be applied to the States, but this was not the original intent of the Bill of Rights. It was to limit the Powers and potential abuses of the federal government.

Or consider it this way: The writers of the Constitution probably recognized a role of government in being able to regulate guns, but not the federal government. Regulation of guns (by the federal government) would most likely have been seen as an infringement of the Second Amendment, unless if it involved interstate commerce. Just what do you think "the right... shall not be infringed" means? The language is very strong.

 

To make the claim that the "original intent" of Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government would be to claim that authors didn't believe that the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments should apply to any criminal cases under State law. There were very few federal crimes when the Bill of Rights was written that these amendments would apply to and the "original intent" was to address all criminal prosecutions and not just federal criminal prosecutions. Sorry but no one will buy the argument that the original intent of the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.

The right for a person to arm themselves so that they can better defend themselves is not infringed upon by restriction of the "arms" available commercially in the United States. You confuse commerce with the Right of the Person to "Keep and Bear Arms" for themselves for the purpose of self-defense. Remember that the 2nd Amendment does not specify "firearms" nor does it specify that a person has a right to "purchase" any form of "arms" but instead refers to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

In light of reading Article I Section 8 that authorizes the federal government....

... this is an absurd belief. In such cases the federal government would be required to provide the ammunition and parts necessary to repair any firearms used by the "militia" and obviously that would necessitate the federal government regulation of what types of firearms would be used by the militia.

That's why I previously stated that the federal government could, based upon the 2nd Amendment, limit "firearms" to the commercially produced .223 caliber Remington hunting rifle with a scope (or a rifle that is completely interchangeable with it). The Right of a Person to Keep and Bear" a "firearm" under the 2nd Amendment would not be "infringed upon" under this criteria and such firearms would be highly available commercially as well. That wouldn't prevent a person from making a .50 caliber rifle in their garage of course but the government could regulate commerce so that a .50 caliber rifle and it's ammunitiion wasn't commercially avaliable for purchase in the United States.

Not that I advocate that of course but a lot of people read meanings into the 2nd Amendment that simply aren't there and they also forget other parts of the US Constitution that also affect any intepretation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

That is the truth. You do not have a good understanding of history. The only reason the Bill of rights now applies to the States is because the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to apply it.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/s...-of-rights-apply-to-the-states/#axzz3J3hZ41o3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021999469

Of course, how the framers of the Constitution intended the extradition clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2) to apply in conjunction with the Bill of rights is an open question. For example, if someone in state A possesses an weapon in violation of state law and flees to state B, can they be extradited? Because state B might not be required to recognize such an extradition under the U.S. Constitution because of the Second Amendment, and it would probably be a violation of the Second Amendment for the federal government to get involved here. Or state A might just fabricate trumped up charges for something else (happens all the time in the court system, believe it or not) to get the fugitive in custody. Interesting constitutional questions.

 

Please don't cite misinformed political opinions as a source of argument.

The earliest Supreme Court cases and the Constitution itself specifically establish that the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land in all matters of controversy. Even when addressing an actual Supreme Court ruling the Supreme Court over-ruled the legislative actions of the State of Georgia in 1810 in the case of Fletcher v. Peck where the state legislature violated the US Constitution and the law was unconstitutional. The US Constitution always applied to the States because it was, by it's own enumeration, the supreme law of the land.

There is no difference between the first ten Amendments and any other Amendment to the US Constitution. The American slang term "Bill of Rights" has no actual meaning in the US Constitution. The first ten Amendments (that were actually 11 but the last wasn't ratified until 1992 as the 27th Amendment) don't have any special legal status in the United States.

 

abagado habla bochinche.

Lawyer speak for: I say what I want that fits MY agenda. You know lawyers will call it green today and red tomorrow as it fits. You know, about like the dems.

 

Shiva_TD



Shiva_TD, consider this. What about the text in the Fifth Amendment "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" ?
State governments do it all the time.

http://www.politicalforum.com/law-j...ent-wish-list-when-deciding-assets-seize.html

 

This property is confiscated but a person can appeal that confiscation in court under the "due process" provisions of 5th Amendment. Admittedly I disagree with these laws of confiscation of personal assets as the appeal is very hard to win if the person has actually convicted of violating the law which authorizes the confiscation of assets. The logic behind the laws is that the assets confiscated were obtained from the illegal activity but that is generally not true in most cases.

I clause you actually referred to is the process of Eminent Domain but in such cases compensation for the property is provided for. There are questions of controversy when it comes to the use of Eminent Domain but not when property is taken outright from a person but instead is typically where "use" is limited by government regulations. For example the person that purchase a piece of land to build upon but then is blocked by laws from construction (e.g. Endangered Species Act, zoning laws, or Environmental Protection Act). Their ownership to the land is not affected nor is property being confiscated for the public use nor does the person suffer a financial loss because of the law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Imminent+Domain

In all of these cases the person is entitled to due process of the law which you failed to include in your citation from the 5th Amendment.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5.html

Don't confuse the two cases where in the first, that your link addressed, is property confiscation based upon a criminal act and due process of the law without compensation while your short reference to the 5th Amendment addresses property being taken through the process of Eminent Domain where just compensation is provided.