A constitutional question


Puppy

New member
It seems to me that those who feel criminals should be allowed to carry guns as per the constitution are forgetting one thing. The Supreme Court Defines what the Constitution means. I agree that ex cons should not be allowed to carry. although there should always be a method for them to regain that right in some cases.

One example an 18 year old kid who commits an offense, does his time and for 10 years or whatever, walks the straight and narrow.

For the opposite that dirt bag killed by a CCWL licensee recently in Washington would never get one. He already had over 50 arrests and a ton of convictions
 

Puppy said:
The Supreme Court Defines what the Constitution means.

Not really. The Court must abide the Constitution just like the rest of us must. The Court can interpret law to see if it comports to the Constitution, but it cannot - read SHOULD not - "interpret" the Constitution. The Constitution is plainly written and means the same thing to the Court as it does to you and I. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Court given any power over what is written in the Constitution. In fact, the power of the Court is specifically granted, and limited to, cases "arising under this Constitution".(Article III, Section 2). Check it out.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Not really. The Court must abide the Constitution just like the rest of us must. The Court can interpret law to see if it comports to the Constitution, but it cannot - read SHOULD not - "interpret" the Constitution. The Constitution is plainly written and means the same thing to the Court as it does to you and I. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Court given any power over what is written in the Constitution. In fact, the power of the Court is specifically granted, and limited to, cases "arising under this Constitution".(Article III, Section 2). Check it out.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood


What you are saying is what it should be, but Constitution Cowboy is absolutely correct. The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says according to what they want; if it were true that the court is not given power to decide what the Constitution says, then the law that outlaws firearm possession by convicted felons would have been thrown out as quickly as it was passed.
 
Last edited:

kwo51

New member
Here lies Less More killed with a 44 no less no more.With the amount of prisoners converting to islam we could be sighing our own death warrents.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
With the amount of prisoners converting to islam we could be sighing our own death warrents.
Forgive my morbidity: Everybody dies. Not everybody truly Lives. It's not that you die that matters, it's how you die.

The prisoners that convert to Islam are not a problem that especially worries me, because they've been convinced to "join". It's the Islamic Fundamentalist Zealot that causes concern. The converted prisoner wants to live as an Islamic, for whatever reason...it's cool, or en vogue...whatever. The ZEALOT wants to DIE for Allah, and that makes him much more dangerous, IMHO. There's only one way to handle this cat, which is by granting his wish, but you have to get the work done before he does it to you.

In the end, my personal belief is that we're entering a period of enormous danger, and many of us will die as a result. Moreso especially if those that would have us abandon our energies in Iraq have their way...in that case, the festivities will be arriving here in short order. So brace yourselves, arm well, and make your decision, but make it now, so you're prepared when the time comes.

"The length of your life is not as important as it's depth" . . . Marylin vos Savant
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
What does any of this have to do with the topic of the forum, which is the constitutionality of denying convicted felons the RKBA?
 

kwo51

New member
I am in florida and we do not give back the rights to felons unless they petion the governor and are then given back. New York gives them back upon release. Need I say more.
 

Puppy

New member
Not really. The Court must abide the Constitution just like the rest of us must. The Court can interpret law to see if it comports to the Constitution, but it cannot - read SHOULD not - "interpret" the Constitution. The Constitution is plainly written and means the same thing to the Court as it does to you and I. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Court given any power over what is written in the Constitution. In fact, the power of the Court is specifically granted, and limited to, cases "arising under this Constitution".(Article III, Section 2). Check it out.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

If what you say is true, we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court. Everyone would agree on what the constitution says and no court would be necessary. The fact is that almost every case which comes before the SC gets there because the two opponents involved have a different opinion as to what the constitution says, i.e. they have different interpretations. The court decides which is right; they interpret it to settle the case.

Additionally one has to decide what the founders intended. They were brilliant men, not darn fools who though it was proper to allow homicidal maniacs to have guns.
 

Quiet

New member
A felon can get his/her right to vote and RKBA back.

They have to prove to a judge that they have rehabilitated and have their record expunged.

It's hard to do, but it does happen.


Case in point, my friend's brother had multiple felonies on his recorded.
When he lived in CA, he was arrested multiple times for being under the influence, drug possession, manufacturing drugs, distributing drugs, possession of stolen property and various firearms offenses relating to drug possession.

After the last time he got arrested (for possession & intent to distribute), instead of prison time, he was sent to "drug school" and went through a 6 month process of being rehabilitated. After he was done with the program, the judge was so impressed by his rehabilitation that he expunged his record.

After his rehabilitation and not believing his record was expunged, he walked into a gun store and ended up buying a H&K USP-45 without any problems. Several years later he moved to MO and now has a MO CCW permit along with several dozen firearms.
 

DrDavidM

New member
Interesting Quiet, I didn't know they could do that for somone with that many offenses. Whether this is a good or bad thing i am unsure, but it's interesting.
 
Interesting Quiet, I didn't know they could do that for somone with that many offenses. Whether this is a good or bad thing i am unsure, but it's interesting.

Under most conditions once a felon serves his entire time, including probation, many rights can be returned. Because of the federal laws, and I may be wrong, firearms possession is a permanent loss.
 

ishi

New member
The fact that the constitution itself doesn't allow the right to bear arms to be taken away after incarceration, reveals much about the pragmatic way the country used to deal with crime.

It also reveals the hypocrisy and falseness of a system of 'corrections' which everybody knows doesn't correct anyone. I'm assuming here that the reason we incarcerate individuals is to protect society. Why would we release someone who can't be trusted with a firearm? It's clear that weaponry of all sorts are readily available to any able-bodied person, whether it be a gun, a brick, a kitchen knife, rat poison or an electrical cord.

If somebody is convicted of armed robbery, rape or attempted murder, how can we really justify releasing this person afterwards, unless we're certain that they're no longer a threat to society? Do we really believe that 20 years of incarceration can make them gentler? If we do believe it can, we need to do more to actually make it work, since it isn't working now. If we don't believe it can, there can be no justification for releasing them.

2nd amendment supporters know that banning inanimate objects doesn't stop crime. The illegalization of Alcohol in the 1920s only lead to packed prisons, thriving gangs and organized crime, and incidents of poisoning from bad batches of moonshine. Hmm, where have we seen these symptoms before?

Our criminal justice system is in dire need of reform, like the rest of the government.
1) Decriminalization of drugs to open up prison space
2) Mandatory life sentences for violent criminals.
3) a return to the rule of the Constitution and
4) transfer of power from the national government to state governments.

If I'm not mistaken, this closely resembles Ron Paul's platform.
 

kwo51

New member
Ishi you must also realize that while you are property of the uncle sam you do not have constitutional rights.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
If what you say is true, we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court. Everyone would agree on what the constitution says and no court would be necessary. The fact is that almost every case which comes before the SC gets there because the two opponents involved have a different opinion as to what the constitution says, i.e. they have different interpretations. The court decides which is right; they interpret it to settle the case.

Additionally one has to decide what the founders intended. They were brilliant men, not darn fools who though it was proper to allow homicidal maniacs to have guns.


While all homicidal maniacs are felons, all felons aren't homicidal maniacs. The fact is, if the founding fathers had intended for RKBA to be contingent upon whether one has felony convictions on their record (or mental illness or anything else for that matter), then it would be written. Since it isn't, however, then obviously they did not have that intention.
 
While all homicidal maniacs are felons, all felons aren't homicidal maniacs. The fact is, if the founding fathers had intended for RKBA to be contingent upon whether one has felony convictions on their record (or mental illness or anything else for that matter), then it would be written. Since it isn't, however, then obviously they did not have that intention.

By definition a felony is a serious crime punishble by more than one year in prison up to execution. While the Constitution does not address this directly, the intent was shown by our forefathers. My apologies to those who have read this reference before. "....and that the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of press .... or to prevent the people of the United States who are peacable citizens from keeping their own arms...." Samuel Adams. Note the use of the term "peacable" here showing that criminals may not retain this right.
 

ishi

New member
By definition a felony is a serious crime punishble by more than one year in prison up to execution. While the Constitution does not address this directly, the intent was shown by our forefathers. My apologies to those who have read this reference before. "....and that the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of press .... or to prevent the people of the United States who are peacable citizens from keeping their own arms...." Samuel Adams. Note the use of the term "peacable" here showing that criminals may not retain this right.

I have a legal problem with interpreting the constitution through quotes by well-known founders. One, each was speaking for himself. They frequently disagreed about important points and debated them at length. It's easy enough to find some piece of writing from a founder to support almost any position. Only the constitution itself is the document which represents their collective and final deliberations.

Two, the constitution was written by people who were literate and capable, so if the final wording did not intend that felons should retain the right to bear arms, they could easily have inserted that exception into the language of the law.

(Please, everyone remember that was not originally a debate over the utility of denying felons the right to bear arms, or a question about current law. This is a constitutional debate.)
 
I have a legal problem with interpreting the constitution through quotes by well-known founders. One, each was speaking for himself. They frequently disagreed about important points and debated them at length. It's easy enough to find some piece of writing from a founder to support almost any position. Only the constitution itself is the document which represents their collective and final deliberations.

Two, the constitution was written by people who were literate and capable, so if the final wording did not intend that felons should retain the right to bear arms, they could easily have inserted that exception into the language of the law.

(Please, everyone remember that was not originally a debate over the utility of denying felons the right to bear arms, or a question about current law. This is a constitutional debate.)

Good point Ishi. I guess to become binding the "intent" must be in writing.
 

kwo51

New member
You first must know the persons history to to know were he is coming from.Books have been written on the history of the Constitution.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,434
Messages
623,592
Members
74,268
Latest member
zyvaaprilia
Top