Felons and Firearms

[rolandson]

So, how about a compromise? Anyone that gets out and is out of prison for a year or more with no violent convictions or repeated offenses should have their rights restored. However, once they reoffend, they should be nullified for life like the violent ones.

Why compromise?
The felons, by virtue of becoming a convicted felon, surrendered their right by committing the crime to begin with. Whether that was just a temporary lack of sound judgement or a wanton act of depraved indifference is irrelevant. They have demonstrated that their ability to exercise good judgement is questionable.

I do not feel sorry for them and I see no reason to accommodate their desires to test their ability to behave themselves by giving them back something they didn't think enough of to begin with.

 

[RVTECH]

The felons, by virtue of becoming a convicted felon, surrendered their right by committing the crime to begin with.

And lets not forget how many crimes these people most likely committed prior to being caught and possibly some worse than what they were ultimately convicted of.

 

[billt]

Your precious government at work.

Yeah, it's the governments fault.....

 

[mkwerx]

Why compromise?
The felons, by virtue of becoming a convicted felon, surrendered their right by committing the crime to begin with. Whether that was just a temporary lack of sound judgement or a wanton act of depraved indifference is irrelevant. They have demonstrated that their ability to exercise good judgement is questionable.

I do not feel sorry for them and I see no reason to accommodate their desires to test their ability to behave themselves by giving them back something they didn't think enough of to begin with.

Please point out the section of the Constitution that backs your position up. I don't recall reading anywhere in that document that allows for stripping someone of their constitutional rights based on being convicted of a crime. The whole point of this thread was to point out an example of the government disregarding the most basic laws of our land.

By saying it doesn't matter if it's a wanton act or a temporary moment of bad judgement, you're running dangerously close to lumping *Everyone* into that group. Who has *not* had, in their adult lives, a moment of bad judgement. I'd bet the vast majority of folks here have done something incredibly stupid once or twice, something that might've even landed them in jail, yet learned from their mistakes and haven't done the same stupid thing again. There *is* a difference between a hardened career criminal or a psychotic killer, and someone that made bad decision that lead to their incarceration. One will continue down a road of destruction and evil - the other can reverse course and become a productive member of society again.

 

[eganx]

So, am I to understand none of ya'll have EVER committed a crime and not been caught? Never gave someone a good'ol fashioned *** whoopin when it was well deserved? Ever have tooth ache and taken a helpful friends vicoden.......felony. So are you a bad person for taking medicine to stop a tooth ache? You must be....and must not have sound judgement.....NO GUNS FOR YOU.

 

[mkwerx]

What about the rights of the victims? A blanket, ignorant, one-line statement about preaching "rights" and "privileges" to me is about as useful as throwing rocks at a frozen pond.

Sit back, think for a minute and come up with an articulate reason why convicted criminals should have their rights restored after breaking the moral codes of society and I will have a discussion with you.

There's the rub - one persons rights are no more or less important than another's in the eyes of the Constitution. Yes - criminals need to be punished, and punished in a matter in line with the crime they committed. The most violent, the career criminals - those that pose a great danger to society, should be locked up until they're no longer a danger, or executed in the case of the worst offenders. But not everyone convicted of a crime is a hardened career killer or rapist, and yet we strip them of "rights" with one neat little label. If something is a God given right - the government can't take it away. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights - they don't say anywhere that it's OK to strip someone of their "rights" with a simple label. The problem is that the government, as it gets older, grows larger, and more bureaucratic, will expand beyond it's constitutional bounds to the point where it simply decides that "rights" aren't rights, and treats them as privileges, and simply does what it wants. The National Firearms Act of 34 and the Gun Control Act 68 aren't Constitutional Amendments, they're simply acts. They weren't ratified by the states. They simply exert control over people that isn't granted to the government by the Constitution.

Most of us have grown up long since these items were enacted - and are simply used to living in a society shaped by them. Because most of us have never had a brush with the law more stringent than a speeding ticket, we simply don't care. We see news articles about violent killers, rapists, and wife beaters and say "yeah, the guy should go away for a long time, and never be let near a weapon again" - but then lump other convicts into the same class. A thief may always be a thief, but that doesn't mean they're going to be a violent thief. The majority of criminals convicted of a felony aren't violent or dangerous. They should be treated differently than the hard core criminals once their sentence is complete by having their rights - all of their rights - restored. Yes, the record of their crime should remain. Yes, if they wind up in trouble again the punishment should be more severe. But to permanently strip someone's rights for life over a non-violent offense is a form of a life sentence. No, they're not in prison for life, but they will forever be a lower class of citizen, which is simply wrong in the eyes of the Constitution. Punishments should fit the crime - they shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime. Victims have rights - the same rights the rest of us have. They don't, however, have the right to not feel bad, or the right not to have their feelings hurt. They still have the rights to defend themselves, vote, travel, and pursue happiness like the rest of us. How they accomplish that is up to them. The victim of theft will get over their loss. It might sting, they might feel scared for a while - but they will heal. The real victim of drug abuse/possession is the criminal themselves in most cases - if they can't get over their addiction, that's their problem. Their families I'm sure, would rather see the person given drug treatment and returned to being a productive member of society, than to be stuck in a cell day in and day out. The victims of software or music piracy are mega corporations that have managed to blow things completely out of proportion and garner some of the most lopsided, outlandish punishments for a crime on the books. They will survive and most will thrive. The people convicted of the crimes against these folks don't deserve to be locked away for life, nor should they have their rights stripped forever, or been made to jump through governmental hoops to get them back. They should be given an appropriate sentence, made to repay the victim an appropriate amount (not something our of proportion for the offense) and then when those conditions are met - automatic restoration of all of their rights.

Those deemed a threat to society should be locked away until they're no longer a threat, if that means life, that means life. But that should be reserved only for the real violent dangers to society. Someone convicted of vehicular manslaughter shouldn't be locked away forever, unless they've also got a string of DUII or reckless driving convictions, and a determination by independent doctors that the person is not likely to be rehabilitated.

If we stop slapping criminals on the wrists and give them appropriate sentences, we might see lower recidivism rates. We need a societal shift. But we also need a government that steps back in line with it's Constitutional bounds, rather than the giant, extra Constitutional monster we have now.

 

[rolandson]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that backs your position up.

Well, let's see...perhaps that part of 2A that says "regulated"...

Then there is that pesky Article One, Section Eight... I'll be nice and copy the relevant part here, but I do suggest that you read it in its entirety...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

... Who has *not* had, in their adult lives, a moment of bad judgement. I'd bet the vast majority of folks here have done something incredibly stupid once or twice, something that might've even landed them in jail...

Speak for yourself and yourself only.

I, sir, have never committed a crime.

 

[Riot]

Yes - criminals need to be punished, and punished in a matter in line with the crime they committed.

So murderers should be put to death, rapers castrated and theivers have their hands cut off? I agree.

The most violent, the career criminals - those that pose a great danger to society, should be locked up until they're no longer a danger, or executed in the case of the worst offenders.

You're absolutely right....but we have to let them go out early to make room for all the druggies. War on drugs you know.

But not everyone convicted of a crime is a hardened career killer or rapist, and yet we strip them of "rights" with one neat little label.

Exactly, which is why I propose the compromise.

If something is a God given right - the government can't take it away. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights - they don't say anywhere that it's OK to strip someone of their "rights" with a simple label.

Soooo, the Constitution was written by God now? I just love how a "rights" debate turns into a "religious" debate by default. God has nothing to do with anything except the Ten Commandments.

The problem is that the government, as it gets older, grows larger, and more bureaucratic, will expand beyond it's constitutional bounds to the point where it simply decides that "rights" aren't rights, and treats them as privileges, and simply does what it wants. The National Firearms Act of 34 and the Gun Control Act 68 aren't Constitutional Amendments, they're simply acts. They weren't ratified by the states. They simply exert control over people that isn't granted to the government by the Constitution.

I agree whole heartedly.

Most of us have grown up long since these items were enacted - and are simply used to living in a society shaped by them. Because most of us have never had a brush with the law more stringent than a speeding ticket, we simply don't care. We see news articles about violent killers, rapists, and wife beaters and say "yeah, the guy should go away for a long time, and never be let near a weapon again" - but then lump other convicts into the same class. A thief may always be a thief, but that doesn't mean they're going to be a violent thief. The majority of criminals convicted of a felony aren't violent or dangerous. They should be treated differently than the hard core criminals once their sentence is complete by having their rights - all of their rights - restored. Yes, the record of their crime should remain. Yes, if they wind up in trouble again the punishment should be more severe. But to permanently strip someone's rights for life over a non-violent offense is a form of a life sentence. No, they're not in prison for life, but they will forever be a lower class of citizen, which is simply wrong in the eyes of the Constitution. Punishments should fit the crime - they shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime. Victims have rights - the same rights the rest of us have. They don't, however, have the right to not feel bad, or the right not to have their feelings hurt. They still have the rights to defend themselves, vote, travel, and pursue happiness like the rest of us. How they accomplish that is up to them. The victim of theft will get over their loss. It might sting, they might feel scared for a while - but they will heal. The real victim of drug abuse/possession is the criminal themselves in most cases - if they can't get over their addiction, that's their problem. Their families I'm sure, would rather see the person given drug treatment and returned to being a productive member of society, than to be stuck in a cell day in and day out. The victims of software or music piracy are mega corporations that have managed to blow things completely out of proportion and garner some of the most lopsided, outlandish punishments for a crime on the books. They will survive and most will thrive. The people convicted of the crimes against these folks don't deserve to be locked away for life, nor should they have their rights stripped forever, or been made to jump through governmental hoops to get them back. They should be given an appropriate sentence, made to repay the victim an appropriate amount (not something our of proportion for the offense) and then when those conditions are met - automatic restoration of all of their rights.

Very well said.

Those deemed a threat to society should be locked away until they're no longer a threat, if that means life, that means life.

By who's standard do we go by? Who makes this rule and who judges them to be safe for society? I could play nice with the law and secretly plot their murder just as easily as the next man. Criminals are master manipulators. Ever here of an inmate named Kenneth Bianchi? He convinced an independant psychiatrist that he had mutiple personality disorder.

But that should be reserved only for the real violent dangers to society. Someone convicted of vehicular manslaughter shouldn't be locked away forever, unless they've also got a string of DUII or reckless driving convictions, and a determination by independent doctors that the person is not likely to be rehabilitated.

If we stop slapping criminals on the wrists and give them appropriate sentences, we might see lower recidivism rates. We need a societal shift. But we also need a government that steps back in line with it's Constitutional bounds, rather than the giant, extra Constitutional monster we have now.

Spend a day in my shoes...your head will explode.

 

[mkwerx]

Well, let's see...perhaps that part of 2A that says "regulated"...

Then there is that pesky Article One, Section Eight... I'll be nice and copy the relevant part here, but I do suggest that you read it in its entirety...




Speak for yourself and yourself only.

I, sir, have never committed a crime.

The phrase "well regulated militia" is separate from "the right of the people." If you want to go down the road of semantics, you start going down the road the anti gun types will eventually use to strip more people of their rights to possess any arms. Every state has it's own militia - it's called the National Guard. Doesn't take much of a lawyer to argue that the "militia" of days gone by was the same as the National Guard - and thus it reserves firearms ownership "rights" solely for the government. No, the phrase "the right of the people" is pretty clear to me.

As to your second point - the Constitution also clearly spells out that any powers *not* specifically granted to the Federal Government shall reside with the States. It doesn't give the Federal government a blank check to do what it wants, especially when it comes to the suspension of revocation of civil "rights".

To your third point - you're probably the only living equivalent to a Saint if what you claim is true. While I'll believe you've probably never committed a major crime - just about every adult alive has done something that could land them in hot water if the powers that be gave a damn, or you come across the wrong official. But good for you if you're the saint you claim. Very few people out there so unstained.

 

[eganx]

Speak for yourself and yourself only.

I, sir, have never committed a crime.

I believe you never purposely committed a crime......but most everyone has "committed a crime" unbeknownst to them. Never shot a robin or any other song bird with your .22 growing up? Never took a sip or booze before the age of 21? etc etc etc......if your really as pure and clean as you say we might should nail you to a cross

 

[mkwerx]

So murderers should be put to death, rapers castrated and theivers have their hands cut off? I agree.

Wouldn't be a horrible start - although I'd probably draw the line at cutting off limbs of first (or even second) time offenders for simple thievery. That's cutting too close to Sharia law for my tastes.

You're absolutely right....but we have to let them go out early to make room for all the druggies. War on drugs you know.

I'm opposed to the "war on drugs" as it's been going on for decades. Huge waste of money on what amounts to a poor government PR campaign. More drugs are flowing across our borders now than in decades past. While I'm not in favor of legalizing every drug under the sun - I strongly believe we've been going about things the absolute worst way possible - we're making criminal cartels very, very wealthy and doing little to combat a growing population of junkies - but throwing people in prison for drug possession or transportation - crimes which could be more effectively punished by other means (work release probation, fines, community service, and drug treatment).

The only drug offenses I'm not opposed to having actual prison sentences are distribution to minors, or manufacturing illegal drugs in neighborhoods, near schools, etc. where such crimes actually do pose a significant direct threat to the community. I could also support secondary charges against people who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs (which would include alcohol) - making for stronger sentences/fines. I don't see how housing these people in prison, and taking up space that could be better utilized by housing the more serious criminals.

Soooo, the Constitution was written by God now? I just love how a "rights" debate turns into a "religious" debate by default. God has nothing to do with anything except the Ten Commandments.

Not turning it into a religious debate at all. Simply used the phrase "God given rights" because that's the easiest way to express them, and how many, if not all, the Founders viewed them. They are natural, inalienable rights - rights of the citizens that are in place to keep the power of the government in check.

By who's standard do we go by? Who makes this rule and who judges them to be safe for society? I could play nice with the law and secretly plot their murder just as easily as the next man. Criminals are master manipulators. Ever here of an inmate named Kenneth Bianchi? He convinced an independant psychiatrist that he had mutiple personality disorder.

Judges would ultimately be responsible for that determination - of course they could take into consideration the opinions of doctors, parole/probation officers, prison officials, and members of the community, the victim's family, the offender's family - even a talking dog (so long as it's a real talking dog, and not just an imaginary one). Judges are supposed to make rational, reasonable judgements given all of the facts at hand. That's what they're paid and elected (or appointed) to do. I say let them do it.

On a similar train of thought - Judges need to be able to pass more reasonable sentences - free from mandatory maximum sentences, or mandatory minimum sentences - since either end of the spectrum is potentially inordinate for a given crime. The trial judge could very well determine that a given criminal poses a significant threat to the community, by establishing a pattern of behavior (that doesn't necessarily need to be a trail of previous arrests/convictions) that shows the person in question will, or is very likely to escalate the nature of their crimes.

For every successful psychopath or sociopath out there gaming the system, there are far more criminals that just aren't that smart. Those that don't get caught for one crime, who continue a criminal career, will f up eventually and get caught. At that point - nail 'em, especially if you can build a case for the previous crimes committed.

And for those who go for guilty by reason of insanity? Okay - you're crazy. You admit to being crazy. You make a doctor think you're crazy. Enjoy your stay in a rubber padded cell for the typical maximum sentence for your crime - if that happens to be a person on person violent crime - enjoy your lifetime stay in said rubber room. No need to waste money on medicating someone in for life - unless they're violent with the Prison-hospital staff. At that point - sedate them into a non-violent state and they can live out their lives a catatonic mess. Unless we as a society are willing to put those people to death. If more criminals knew *that* was the likely outcome of their crime - fewer would push for that type of defense. For those who plead guilty by insanity and the docs and judge determine they are *not* crazy - they've already plead guilty so give them the appropriate prison sentence.

Spend a day in my shoes...your head will explode.

It very well might. Don't know what you do day in or day out. I will say that I believe that a large number of the folks in the system now are that way because our society has changed in a way to produce more numbers of repeat offenders. Breakdown of strong family social structures is probably a big part of it, along with generations of entitlement-minded people who believe that society owes them everything from a place to live to a car to a cell phone to a big screen TV without them working for it.

Drugs do play a large part in most crimes at some level - and that's another issue we need to address in a different manner, because the way we're doing things now isn't working.


How many folks continue a life of crime after their first convictions because they simply don't care anymore. They've been branded a felon, they've lost some legal rights (voting, firearms, etc) and they've been to prison before (or have gotten a lengthy probation and never really got an appropriate punishment for their crime) and so what's one more crime? A felon can get a gun just as easily, or moreso in some states, than a law abiding person. The criminals so inclined will do what they want, including buying, selling, and carrying guns. Aside from adding another charge (which may get plead down, or thrown out by the DA) of felon in possession of a weapon - the law preventing a felon from owning a gun won't stop them from getting it. It just makes for a larger black market of stolen firearms.

The whole point of making it illegal for felons to own a firearm in 1968 was less about making it safer for law abiding citizens and police officers from going about their business, as it was simply continuing the march of the gun control lobby into restricting our rights. I wouldn't discount racial issues behind that push either - as the NFA was passed in part to make guns, and especially machine guns, less accessible to blacks and immigrants - much like how marijuana was made illegal. There was less science behind it and more racism.

I don't see how it is harmful to restore a man's rights once his debt is repaid - but I do see how it is harmful to our rights, as law abiding citizens, for the government to be able to disarm us by branding us felons - just as it's harmful to allow warrantless wire taps, and holding people indefinitely without charging them with a crime by simply branding them as a "terrorist." For me it's an issue of civil liberty vs expanding governmental power - and I lean toward the side of citizens rights. Now, if someone who has already been convicted once returns to their life of crime, and commits a crime with a weapon - I'm all for adding extra time for committing a crime with a weapon - which, oddly enough, I'm also in favor of for first time offenders. It'd also be helpful to those judges, mentioned earlier, in establishing a behavioral pattern, and deciding that this person really is incredibly stupid, dangerous, and shouldn't be allowed on the streets. Punishment fitting the crime.


It is nice to see this thread getting back on the track of this topic - rather than continuing the multi-page hijack about the housing bubble...

 

[Blitzkrieg]

So murderers should be put to death, rapers castrated and theivers have their hands cut off? I agree..

Wow, we agree! BTW I am a VERY serious Christian

 

[rolandson]

The phrase "well regulated militia" is separate from "the right of the people." If you want to go down the road of semantics, you start going down the road the anti gun types will eventually use to strip more people of their rights to possess any arms. Every state has it's own militia - it's called the National Guard. Doesn't take much of a lawyer to argue that the "militia" of days gone by was the same as the National Guard - and thus it reserves firearms ownership "rights" solely for the government. No, the phrase "the right of the people" is pretty clear to me.

As to your second point - the Constitution also clearly spells out that any powers *not* specifically granted to the Federal Government shall reside with the States. It doesn't give the Federal government a blank check to do what it wants, especially when it comes to the suspension of revocation of civil "rights".

To your third point - you're probably the only living equivalent to a Saint if what you claim is true. While I'll believe you've probably never committed a major crime - just about every adult alive has done something that could land them in hot water if the powers that be gave a damn, or you come across the wrong official. But good for you if you're the saint you claim. Very few people out there so unstained.

None too bright are we?

Look up TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 of the United States Code; that may explain your semantics issue to you. Then review Article One § Eight again and consider how the DOJ got its mandate to form the BATFE...

Now look over the BATFE form 4473 you completed during your last firearms purchase and tell us again how you lied when you completed that...

 

[Rvrcowboy]

None too bright are we?

Look up TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 of the United States Code; that may explain your semantics issue to you. Then review Article One § Eight again and consider how the DOJ got its mandate to form the BATFE...

Now look over the BATFE form 4473 you completed during your last firearms purchase and tell us again how you lied when you completed that..!.

I think that the point that was trying to be made here was that 2a should be interpreted for what it is, and not be allowed to be further watered down by governmental interpretation. Breaking down the 2a, by way of comparison, would be like saying freedom of speech so as long as it doesn't offend anyone of freedom of the press subject to government approval or review.

As to the 4473- whats to say he ever filled it out. I never have. I couldnt care less. I have aquired my firearms from family and private party. Largely to protect my privacy. I dont think its your business or the governments what i own. That said, i also am free to do so, since im not a felon, loon, or wife beater.

As to the "not too bright" statement- its nice to see you enjoying the "free speech, even it offends someone" i spoke about earlier.

I liked his response...

Respectfully

 

[Blitzkrieg]

We the People ARE the militia.. way too much has been made out of a simple punctuation.. the 2nd part of the amendment is simply explaining WHO the militia is.. US

I believe the Founders would stand open mouthed at that red herring argument and would have gladly reworded it to fend off that false argument if they had that foresight

 

[Riot]

I'm opposed to the "war on drugs" as it's been going on for decades. Huge waste of money on what amounts to a poor government PR campaign. More drugs are flowing across our borders now than in decades past. While I'm not in favor of legalizing every drug under the sun - I strongly believe we've been going about things the absolute worst way possible - we're making criminal cartels very, very wealthy and doing little to combat a growing population of junkies - but throwing people in prison for drug possession or transportation - crimes which could be more effectively punished by other means (work release probation, fines, community service, and drug treatment).

Agreed. I think our "War on Drugs" has done more to increase the violence in Mexico than any "gun show loophole".

The only drug offenses I'm not opposed to having actual prison sentences are distribution to minors, or manufacturing illegal drugs in neighborhoods, near schools, etc. where such crimes actually do pose a significant direct threat to the community. I could also support secondary charges against people who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs (which would include alcohol) - making for stronger sentences/fines. I don't see how housing these people in prison, and taking up space that could be better utilized by housing the more serious criminals.

It's about the money. You have to justify the funding for the police by the amount of drugs on the street and you have to justify your chemical dependancy program budget in your prison system by the amount of drug users you have incarcerated. Nice little catch-22 huh? We cannot privatize criminals to be a benifit to the state in any way (i.e. put them to work making roads and such) because that would encourage making traffic fines an offense to be jailed for cheap labor (i.e. slave labor). Yet here we have a system that is self dependant upon the very drugs they claim they are trying to combat.

Judges would ultimately be responsible for that determination - of course they could take into consideration the opinions of doctors, parole/probation officers, prison officials, and members of the community, the victim's family, the offender's family - even a talking dog (so long as it's a real talking dog, and not just an imaginary one). Judges are supposed to make rational, reasonable judgements given all of the facts at hand. That's what they're paid and elected (or appointed) to do. I say let them do it.

I don't think you realize the strain this would incur on our justice system. It is busting at the seams as it is...

 

[mkwerx]

Agreed. I think our "War on Drugs" has done more to increase the violence in Mexico than any "gun show loophole".



It's about the money. You have to justify the funding for the police by the amount of drugs on the street and you have to justify your chemical dependancy program budget in your prison system by the amount of drug users you have incarcerated. Nice little catch-22 huh? We cannot privatize criminals to be a benifit to the state in any way (i.e. put them to work making roads and such) because that would encourage making traffic fines an offense to be jailed for cheap labor (i.e. slave labor). Yet here we have a system that is self dependant upon the very drugs they claim they are trying to combat.



I don't think you realize the strain this would incur on our justice system. It is busting at the seams as it is...

I think you're spot on about money being the root of the biggest problems our system faces. It's busting at it's seams, because we lost focus of what the system was about and let it become something it wasn't supposed to be, in addition to criminalizing just about everything. And while it's pretty crazy - there are some states that *do* allow for jailing you over traffic infractions. Not sure if it's made it's way to SCOTUS, but I recall an incident in Texas a while back - an officer had repeatedly stopped a woman for failure to buckle in her children while driving. He finally wound up arresting her for the infraction - she sued, and lost. Last I heard it had made it to the appellate court.

The system is broken, it needs fixed, I think this we can agree on.

 

[Burt Gummer]

Never committed a crime comment ..... LOL. That is impossible in one's lifetime. Government cannot oppress the sheeple without tens of thousands of ridiculous laws to make EVERYONE a criminal.

Remember when O.J. Simpson was the worst headache for the Feds and they were so, so desperate to get something, anything on him after his not-guilty murder verdict?

They used a 'general warrant' to search his home on BS and came up with an unregistered/pirate card for watching sports games on his TV. He was off to jail and imposed with a $25k fine. Anyone who thinks the Vegas hotel room BS where someone else had a gun and he was baited into going to a room to get back his own things was NOT a set up? - If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

The IMF guy last year accused of rape was because he was pushing for radical banking reform to protect YOU, not the trillionaire banksters.

If you step on the wrong toes, and a crime cannot be found, one will be created for you.

In other words, anyone at almost anytime is 'guilty' of breaking some law. That is without a doubt. Have you ever downloaded a song without paying for it? Is there any music or movies on your PC right now that you cannot show a proof of purchase for specifically? Do you know you can be put in prison for 5 years for such a criminal act? Copy and pasted a copyrighted article? Etc, Etc, Etc ....

FUNNY that there is actually a person that believes sincerely that they have never committed a crime. Of course, even if that were the case, many, many people are in jail due to planted evidence and the like. Anyone can have their life turned upside down via tyranny at any time, even the meek 'law-abiding' by the book drone types that design their life around what authority figures tell them.

 

[mkwerx]

None too bright are we?

Look up TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 of the United States Code; that may explain your semantics issue to you. Then review Article One § Eight again and consider how the DOJ got its mandate to form the BATFE...

Now look over the BATFE form 4473 you completed during your last firearms purchase and tell us again how you lied when you completed that...

For someone who is all knowing - please pray tell - how did I lie on my last 4473? I've never been arrested, never been convicted of any crime, never been a user of illegal drugs, never renounced my citizenship, I'm not an illegal alien, nor have I ever been subject to a restraining order, protection order, or placed into a mental health facility against my will.

It's also interesting how you cite the federal code which they codify the Militia - but that section of the USC wasn't written at the time of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights - it wasn't added until the early 20th century. If you want to take the view that only members of the militia as defined in TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 of the United States Code can legally posses a firearm, then you must be willing to surrender those firearms the day you turn 45 years old? Or are you already past that age, and have willingly turned your firearms in to the local authorities? It also states that the only females integrated into the "militia" are those serving in the National Guard.

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

So yes, if you want to take a strict view that the 2nd applies only to the militia as defined in the USC, I am a part of the militia and thus would be granted the right to keep and bear arms.

So tell me - is it "the Militia" who has the right to keep and bear arms, or is it "the people"?

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.

It's a pretty damned easy sentence to read, and is pretty clear to me. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arm, shall not be infringed." It states right there, it's the People's right, not just that of the Militia.


And here are the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

The Constitution grants Congress the ability to define Felonies and Piracies on the high seas, as well as the ability to make laws to execute the powers set by the Constitution. That doesn't give them a blank check - nor does that say anywhere within that Congress has the right to strip a person of their civil rights. And I'm pretty sure that dry land doesn't constitute the "high seas."

You can get into the realm of "necessary and proper" - but tell me how it is necessary or proper to strip someone of their civil rights after they've completed the sentence for a crime they are convicted of? It is "necessary and proper" to do so while they are incarcerated or otherwise under the supervision of the Bureau of Prisons or the state equivalents - but once they are done with their sentence - tell me how it is proper to strip someone of their civil rights. If the founding fathers believed that to be the case, they would've put that into the Constitution.

 

[coop44]

Rights? Hell, hang them all! rapist, murderers, kidnappers, terrorists, traffic scofflaws, dog license violaters, jaywalkers.

Prisoners have no civil rights, being on conditional release from prison should not give you rights, they should be branded right in the middle of their foreheads. So we can recognize them from a distance.