In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Don't Flinch at Felons With Firearms
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Don't Flinch at Felons With Firearms
by Joe Eldred
An interesting item appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune recently. It chronicled the plight of one Wade L. Willis. In a case pending before the Utah Court of Appeals, Mr. Willis is contesting the law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. What is most interesting is the reported reaction of advocates of the right to keep and bear arms. They are said to be "flinching" and "cautious about jumping to Willis' defense." I find this puzzling. It seems to me that Mr. Willis is the perfect poster boy for the eminently morally defensible position that convicted felons ought to be able to possess firearms.
Mr. Wade has a history of nonviolent misdemeanor convictions and charges, including shoplifting and--when he was a minor--illegal possession of alcohol and drugs. His only felony convictions were for escaping police custody and gun possession. In his defense, he is citing the Utah Constitution's sweeping guarantee of self-defense rights. More power to him, but we need not delve into it that deeply to give him our unreserved and enthusiastic support. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
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.
Shall not be infringed. Period. End of story. Not, "shall not be infringed except for really scary people we don't like."
More importantly, the Declaration of Independence makes an even stronger case for the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.
. . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights . . . . That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . . .
There you have it. We have a moral obligation to resist tyranny. That in turn requires that we maintain the material capacity for such resistance. That right is inalienable. It cannot be taken away, without due process of law--and that means by a fully informed jury of one's peers. It is an inalienable right, meaning that not only can it not be taken away, it can't even be given away voluntarily. That means that it is doubtful that one could even plea bargain away your future right to keep and bear arms in exchange, say, for a lighter prison sentence. It is conceivable, perhaps, that the prohibition of firearms ownership could be made a part of an individual's sentence (i.e., 20 years in prison, 15 additional years during which time the accused may not possess a firearm), but that is not how it is being done. The practice in Utah, as in most of the country, is that there is a blanket prohibition by statute of possession by felons. And even if such terms were made part of a sentence, they would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. As defined above, any individual dispossessed of the right to self-defense is not free. They should be locked up behind bars. But if they have served their sentence, they should be trusted with firearms, just as they are trusted with the freedom of religion and every other inalienable right, as Charles Hardy, policy director for Gun Owners of Utah, points out. It would be more humane to execute than to sentence an in individual to a lifetime of fear of death because they are not able to adequately defend themselves.
But that's not how Utah assistant attorney general Brett DelPorto sees it:
"Metal detectors at courthouses, government offices and airports would be pointless if citizens have the unencumbered right to 'possess' firearms . . . ."
He says that like it would be a bad thing. Of course, courthouses, government offices and airports would all be safer if metal detectors were removed and citizens were allowed to exercise their fundamental right to be armed. (See Project: Safe Skies)
I don't know Mr. Willis. Perhaps he is no Boy Scout. But his only crime is the same crime committed by most victims of the abominable Project Exile, as chronicled by David Holthouse is a recent article: Possession of firearms. In other words, he is guilty of resisting the very sort of tyranny that Jefferson declared it our moral duty to resist. He is guilty of doing the very same thing that our Founding Fathers did that made them outlaws.
Supporting Wade Willis should be a no-brainer for the pro-gun community. But the same principle that applies to him also should apply to violent felons. Does that mean that I relish the thought of my family being threatened by an armed and dangerous predator? Certainly not, but that is exactly why I am so adamant that felons be allowed the right to keep and bear arms. As long as I am allowed the unrestricted right to arm myself, I have nothing to fear from any man. But when governments are allowed to determine who is a criminal based on what they own, possess or carry, then all of us are potential criminals, and unless Mr. Willis' case is just, potential victims. http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Eldred/eldred2.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
by Joe Eldred
An interesting item appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune recently. It chronicled the plight of one Wade L. Willis. In a case pending before the Utah Court of Appeals, Mr. Willis is contesting the law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. What is most interesting is the reported reaction of advocates of the right to keep and bear arms. They are said to be "flinching" and "cautious about jumping to Willis' defense." I find this puzzling. It seems to me that Mr. Willis is the perfect poster boy for the eminently morally defensible position that convicted felons ought to be able to possess firearms.
Mr. Wade has a history of nonviolent misdemeanor convictions and charges, including shoplifting and--when he was a minor--illegal possession of alcohol and drugs. His only felony convictions were for escaping police custody and gun possession. In his defense, he is citing the Utah Constitution's sweeping guarantee of self-defense rights. More power to him, but we need not delve into it that deeply to give him our unreserved and enthusiastic support. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
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.
Shall not be infringed. Period. End of story. Not, "shall not be infringed except for really scary people we don't like."
More importantly, the Declaration of Independence makes an even stronger case for the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.
. . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights . . . . That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . . .
There you have it. We have a moral obligation to resist tyranny. That in turn requires that we maintain the material capacity for such resistance. That right is inalienable. It cannot be taken away, without due process of law--and that means by a fully informed jury of one's peers. It is an inalienable right, meaning that not only can it not be taken away, it can't even be given away voluntarily. That means that it is doubtful that one could even plea bargain away your future right to keep and bear arms in exchange, say, for a lighter prison sentence. It is conceivable, perhaps, that the prohibition of firearms ownership could be made a part of an individual's sentence (i.e., 20 years in prison, 15 additional years during which time the accused may not possess a firearm), but that is not how it is being done. The practice in Utah, as in most of the country, is that there is a blanket prohibition by statute of possession by felons. And even if such terms were made part of a sentence, they would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. As defined above, any individual dispossessed of the right to self-defense is not free. They should be locked up behind bars. But if they have served their sentence, they should be trusted with firearms, just as they are trusted with the freedom of religion and every other inalienable right, as Charles Hardy, policy director for Gun Owners of Utah, points out. It would be more humane to execute than to sentence an in individual to a lifetime of fear of death because they are not able to adequately defend themselves.
But that's not how Utah assistant attorney general Brett DelPorto sees it:
"Metal detectors at courthouses, government offices and airports would be pointless if citizens have the unencumbered right to 'possess' firearms . . . ."
He says that like it would be a bad thing. Of course, courthouses, government offices and airports would all be safer if metal detectors were removed and citizens were allowed to exercise their fundamental right to be armed. (See Project: Safe Skies)
I don't know Mr. Willis. Perhaps he is no Boy Scout. But his only crime is the same crime committed by most victims of the abominable Project Exile, as chronicled by David Holthouse is a recent article: Possession of firearms. In other words, he is guilty of resisting the very sort of tyranny that Jefferson declared it our moral duty to resist. He is guilty of doing the very same thing that our Founding Fathers did that made them outlaws.
Supporting Wade Willis should be a no-brainer for the pro-gun community. But the same principle that applies to him also should apply to violent felons. Does that mean that I relish the thought of my family being threatened by an armed and dangerous predator? Certainly not, but that is exactly why I am so adamant that felons be allowed the right to keep and bear arms. As long as I am allowed the unrestricted right to arm myself, I have nothing to fear from any man. But when governments are allowed to determine who is a criminal based on what they own, possess or carry, then all of us are potential criminals, and unless Mr. Willis' case is just, potential victims. http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Eldred/eldred2.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Cowardly sheeple....
Stand And Be Counted
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
In some states, I thought the law said you cant own a weapon if you've ever been convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or felony.
I understand the ostensible purpose of the law, but to be honest, I'd trust a lot of felons with a gun before I'd trust some clean people I know.
Besides: if they want to use a gun for a crime, a criminal will probably get bored waiting 3 days for NICS to call them back and just forget about the whole thing and go home and knit instead.
Brilliant scheme they got going there.
A fine cigar gladdens the soul."Remember, there are only two: The Quick, and the Dead"
If I ever figure out my NICS problem I'll be sure to post it.