National Federal Judge Rules Felons Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

[Koda]

There is a stronger historical tradition of freeing violent offenders from this mortal coil. Maybe that is the direction we should be going. Like in Texas... you kill one of ours... we'll kill you back!

the problem with the historical tradition of capital punishment is its wrought with wrong convictions.

 

[RX-79G]

I missed it. Was there any discussion of whether arbitrarily removing one and only one Constitutional Right is rational? Forget if it is a good or bad idea, or if it is deserved. How is it that one Right has a different status than other Rights?


Why not remove First Amendment rights from a slanderer? Or take away Fifth Amendment protections from con men?

 

[CamoDeafie]

I missed it. Was there any discussion of whether arbitrarily removing one and only one Constitutional Right is rational? Forget if it is a good or bad idea, or if it is deserved. How is it that one Right has a different status than other Rights?


Why not remove First Amendment rights from a slanderer? Or take away Fifth Amendment protections from con men?

Well. As a convicted felon, one usually loses 2A, sometimes 4A, the right to vote, 9th/10th A including the right to jury duty, the right to hold some professional licenses, the right to hold public office (in some jurisdictions )

 

[Koda]

How is it that one Right has a different status than other Rights?

The Second Amendment is the only one that involves an inanimate object.

 

[Yarome]

I missed it. Was there any discussion of whether arbitrarily removing one and only one Constitutional Right is rational? Forget if it is a good or bad idea, or if it is deserved. How is it that one Right has a different status than other Rights?


Why not remove First Amendment rights from a slanderer? Or take away Fifth Amendment protections from con men?

By that argument... criminals shouldn't even be detained or incarcerated as it is denying them their inalieanble right to freedom. Capital punishment would also be a violation of a persons rights to life... no matter how heinious or deprived the crime. On a smaller scale, the argument could also trickle down into making the point that LEO's shouldn't carry firearms as they may deprive a person of their right to life.

The fact of the matter is that when people break trust and make offense against the people, violating others rights, some rights do become forfeit or are placed in part under restriction. Without rule of law... chaos reigns.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Without rule of law... chaos reigns.

Seems with the selective and often agenda-driven "discretion" on applying laws to citizens, we are already in chaotic times just because of the disproportionate application of Legal system (see CRS as opposed to many actual violent felons being let out within 24 hours of arrests)

 

[RX-79G]

Well. As a convicted felon, one usually loses 2A, sometimes 4A, the right to vote, 9th/10th A including the right to jury duty, the right to hold some professional licenses, the right to hold public office (in some jurisdictions )

4A says "unreasonable search and seizure. What's unreasonable for someone on parole?
The right to vote is not in the BoR. Considering who could and couldn't vote in the beginning, it doesn't seem to be a right in the BoR sense.
Jury Duty is a right?
Professional licenses are a right? Are any licenses a right?

I think you might be stretching the idea of a right.

 

[RX-79G]

The Second Amendment is the only one that involves an inanimate object.

3rd. 5th.

 

[CamoDeafie]

4A says "unreasonable search and seizure. What's unreasonable for someone on parole?
The right to vote is not in the BoR. Considering who could and couldn't vote in the beginning, it doesn't seem to be a right in the BoR sense.
Jury Duty is a right?
Professional licenses are a right? Are any licenses a right?

I think you might be stretching the idea of a right.

Civil and Constitutional Rights of Convicted Felons | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

What Rights Do Convicted Felons Lose?

Convicted felons lose rights from voting to employment, depending on their state of residence. See what rights felons lose temporarily and permanently!

thelawdictionary.org

Which Rights Do You Lose After a Felony Conviction?

Florida felons lose civil rights such as the right to vote, be in a jury, run for public office, and more. They also lose their second amendment rights to own firearms. If your sentence is over, and you’re ready to get your rights back, contact a lawyer today.

www.thehoffmanfirm.net

The 9th Amendment expressly says all rights that's not enumerated, are also protected and the 10th Amendment says that the rights not listed in BOR are reserved to the People or the States

 

[RX-79G]

By that argument... criminals shouldn't even be detained or incarcerated as it is denying them their inalieanble right to freedom. Capital punishment would also be a violation of a persons rights to life... no matter how heinious or deprived the crime. On a smaller scale, the argument could also trickle down into making the point that LEO's shouldn't carry firearms as they may deprive a person of their right to life.

The fact of the matter is that when people break trust and make offense against the people, violating others rights, some rights do become forfeit or are placed in part under restriction. Without rule of law... chaos reigns.

I don't disagree. But the selection of rights to keep or deny seems slightly arbitrary.

 

[CamoDeafie]

3rd. 5th.

Sure, if you consider troops to be inanimate objects and the 5th is right to privacy I believe.

 

[RX-79G]

Civil and Constitutional Rights of Convicted Felons | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

What Rights Do Convicted Felons Lose?

Convicted felons lose rights from voting to employment, depending on their state of residence. See what rights felons lose temporarily and permanently!

thelawdictionary.org

Which Rights Do You Lose After a Felony Conviction?

Florida felons lose civil rights such as the right to vote, be in a jury, run for public office, and more. They also lose their second amendment rights to own firearms. If your sentence is over, and you’re ready to get your rights back, contact a lawyer today.

www.thehoffmanfirm.net

The 9th Amendment expressly says all rights that's not enumerated, are also protected and the 10th Amendment says that the rights not listed in BOR are reserved to the People or the States

That doesn't mean that everyone has carte blanche on all possible "rights", no matter how poorly defined.

 

[Koda]

Seems with the selective and often agenda-driven "discretion" on applying laws to citizens, we are already in chaotic times just because of the disproportionate application of Legal system (see CRS as opposed to many actual violent felons being let out within 24 hours of arrests)

I will never forget how our cities political elite gave criminal amnesty on the basis of political agendas when committing crimes during protests.

District Attorney Mike Schmidt Will Drop Most Charges Against Portland Protesters

www.wweek.com

 

[RX-79G]

Sure, if you consider troops to be inanimate objects and the 5th is right to privacy I believe.

The house itself is an inanimate object.

The fifth includes the taking clause.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That doesn't mean that everyone has carte blanche on all possible "rights", no matter how poorly defined.

It also doesn't mean that the government has carte Blanche to restrict unenumerated Rights of the People no matter how "poorly defined" they are.

 

[Yarome]

4A says "unreasonable search and seizure. What's unreasonable for someone on parole?

So infringing on their rights just because they are on parole is okay.... but someone that was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder should be able to leagally possess a firearm again?

Which denial of rights is okay and which aren't? You can't really argue that's some rights forfeitures are okay to impose for the good of society, but others are a violation against the same reasoning.

Just sayin....

 

[solv3nt]

So infringing on their rights just because they are on parole is okay.... but someone that was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder should be able to leagally possess a firearm again?

Which denial of rights is okay and which aren't? You can't really argue that's some rights forfeitures are okay to impose for the good of society, but others are a violation under the same reasoning.

Just sayin....

Take them all, including their nuts!

 

[Yarome]

Seems with the selective and often agenda-driven "discretion" on applying laws to citizens, we are already in chaotic times just because of the disproportionate application of Legal system (see CRS as opposed to many actual violent felons being let out within 24 hours of arrests)

I absolutely can't argue with you there. It's a blathering mess of our own creation these days. Political agenda's are destroying common good laws.

 

[RX-79G]

So infringing on their rights just because they are on parole is okay.... but someone that was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder should be able to leagally possess a firearm again?

Which denial of rights is okay and which aren't? You can't really argue that's some rights forfeitures are okay to impose for the good of society, but others are a violation against the same reasoning.

Just sayin....

As is so frequently pointed out on this and every other gun forum:

2A says "shall not be infringed". Which is pretty absolute sounding.

5A says "unreasonable". Which is pretty subjective.

Just saying...

 

[RX-79G]

It also doesn't mean that the government has carte Blanche to restrict unenumerated Rights of the People no matter how "poorly defined" they are.

I wouldn't say the government has carte blanche to do those things. They needed to have assemblies pass laws, have those laws signed by the executive and then hear challenges to those laws in court.