A constitutional question


ishi

New member
There's something I've been thinking about as a result of recent posts...

We don't lose our freedom of speech, or religion, right to a fair trial, right to be secure in our homes or persons, etc when we are convicted of a felony. Why then do we lose our right to bear arms?

To someone who believes that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, this question isn't even worth asking. But what about those who believe it is an individual right?

I'm asking this as a constitutional question, not as a utilitarian question. Utilitarian-wise, it's very clear why this might be desired. Whether this is constitutionally justifiable is my question. This is an open question, but particularly I'd like to hear Woody's opinion on this.
 

I'm one that believes if your convicted of a violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) you have shown the inability to use the RKBA responsibly. Even the founding fathers felt this way as evidenced by Samual Adams when he stated: "That the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press....or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms....".
 

ishi

New member
I'm one that believes if your convicted of a violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) you have shown the inability to use the RKBA responsibly. Even the founding fathers felt this way as evidenced by Samual Adams when he stated: "That the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press....or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms....".

Good point ronwill, that quote from Samuel Adams is a pretty good statement of their intent. I'd like to know where that intent was codified in the constitution itself though.
 
Ishi, while I can find no references in the Constitution for this action, it has been a longstanding and popular custom. The following article touches on that and some more current actions. Since you've tweaked my interest I'm going to continue research on the question.

http://www.io.com/~velte/po-crit.htm
 
ishi said:
We don't lose our freedom of speech, or religion, right to a fair trial, right to be secure in our homes or persons, etc when we are convicted of a felony. Why then do we lose our right to bear arms?

It's a simple answer: Congress and some of the several state legislatures have taken it upon themselves to infringe upon the right for no other justification than those utilitarian reasons you do not wish to discuss(and quite frankly, neither do I at this point). It is unconstitutional for anyone in government to pass law or enforce law that infringes upon anyone's right to keep and bear arms. There is no power granted to Congress to pass such a law anywhere in the Constitution. All others are forbidden to infringe upon the right by the Second Amendment.

A person may be kept from his arms by being imprisoned in the custody of the state or the Union. Once freed, though, such a person is no different than any law abiding person regarding any inalienable right.

This will blow your mind: The Union only has the power to punish those who counterfeit money; commit piracy and felonies on the high seas and offenses against the laws of nations; those in the armed services; and those convicted of treason. In all other cases, per the Constitution, a person can be compelled to comply with the law, but not imprisoned for breaking such other federal law. You can be forced to pay the taxes you owe to Uncle Sam, but per the Constitution, Uncle Sam cannot lock you up for not paying your taxes.

Punishment for most crimes is in the purview of the several states.

What we have, what we suffer, is government - or rather those in government - out of control. These people have slipped the bounds of the Constitution. I'll bet you that you could count on one hand all the people in power in Congress and in the Oval Office who fully understand the Constitution and abide it. I'll grant there may be as many as four on the Supreme Court who fully understand, and will abide, the Constitution.

I do believe that will give you a small picture of what we are up against.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood
 
Last edited:

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it.
These words should be carved in granite somewhere!

So, Woody . . . What would be the modern equivalent of the Boston tea party?
 
Last edited:

Sgt. SIG

New member
I think I would have to say that an armed people cannot be tyrannized, they will not be easily dominated and they can oppose their government should their government try to take their freedom away!

Unfortunately, the reality is, the sheep that comprise the majority in this nation will gladly give up their rights, their freedoms and will hurry to give them to the man who can make all their fears go away. His platform will be world peace and safety! Watch out... he's coming! :eek:
 

Dakotaranger

New member
I think the theory is a felon proves they are incapible of being good citizens. Thus, they aren't allowed to vote, have to obey certain rules after they are released from their sentence, can't congragate with other ex-cons, and aren't allowed to own firearms.

In effect, a person looses their citizenship by becoming a felon.
 

mot mayhem

New member
I hope, AND pray that "she" never does arrive.

The sad thing about it all is, that even though I do not disagree w/ the fact that the felons lose certain priviledges, it still doesn't stop them. Take for instance dui's. i see firsthand the effects of multiple convictions, yet they still continue to drive, and drink, earning multiple convictions, and in some circumstances, what we refer to in OH as "family plates" - pumpkin orange liscence plates which allows the police the priviledge to pull you over at anytime for no reason.

Not that I disagree w/ either, but it just proves the point that the criminal-minded just do not care. If someone was not regarding the law when they broke it in the first place, what makes them ( the powers that be ) believe that they will uphold it after they have been caught?

Which is why I love the bumper sticker that states "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."

As stated earlier, it is easier for certain people to hold onto certain beliefs that the people up above know what's best for us... (and in some cases they do), and will protect us while they can "deal with" losing certain rights/priviledges to protect the majority of society. In a perfect world, that would be fine. But, if these people would just realize the truth, I wonder what thier opinions would be then.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
A thorough reading of the 2nd amendment simply says:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'll be the first to say that I'm not comfortable with convicted felons being allowed to exercise this right, but 2A does not say that the right can be infringed on account of a prior felony conviction. Only with another constitutional amendment specifically saying that the right can be denied on account of a prior felony conviction can this be either legal or constitutionally justifiable. The same goes for denying the right to mentally ill people; I'm pretty sure that not very many people (myself included) are not fond of the idea of allowing schizophrenics and other wackos the right to own firearms, but until the constitution says they can't, then denying them the right is not constitutionally justifiable.
 
Last edited:
In many states, after serving the complete sentence including probation, a felon can regain most of the lost rights. The only one that stays is keeping a gun, they lose that for life in most instances.
 

ishi

New member
Unfortunately, the reality is, the sheep that comprise the majority in this nation will gladly give up their rights, their freedoms and will hurry to give them to the man who can make all their fears go away. His platform will be world peace and safety! Watch out... he's coming! :eek:

Have you not noticed? He's been here for 7 years now.
 

HK4U

New member
I think I would have to say that an armed people cannot be tyrannized, they will not be easily dominated and they can oppose their government should their government try to take their freedom away!

Unfortunately, the reality is, the sheep that comprise the majority in this nation will gladly give up their rights, their freedoms and will hurry to give them to the man who can make all their fears go away. His platform will be world peace and safety! Watch out... he's coming! :eek:

Have you not noticed? He's been here for 7 years now.


I think Sgt. SIG is refering to the one in Revelations. If so it my be sooner than we think.
 

mot mayhem

New member
I think Sgt. SIG is refering to the one in Revelations. If so it my be sooner than we think.


I agree wholeheartedly. Once again, the times are similar to Noah.

and .... as far as felons go. I had a friend years ago before he was married w/ child that was stooopid and got busted w/ cocaine. That's a felony. Mark did his time, cleaned up his act and became a solid, contributing factor in society.... as far as a "felon" could go. Mark was in his 40's when I met him, and that happenned when he was in his early 20's. All I am saying I guess is that there are some who do change, but have been marked for life. There should be some sort of review board for certain circumstances.

nuff ranting on my part for now... thanks, mot
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,653
Members
74,274
Latest member
Jlynn610
Top