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.

Supreme Court turns away disputes over firearms ban for nonviolent felons

Wild TurkeyWild Turkey Member Posts: 2,258 ✭✭✭

"In each of the cases, the three people argued the lifetime ban on firearm possession violated the Second Amendment"

As much as I'd like to support this case SCOTUS was right. They should have argued that the penalty had no connection to the crime. It should have been an Eighth Amendment argument.

Remember that SCOTUS will rule on the narrowest possible grounds.

Comments

  • SCOUT5SCOUT5 Member Posts: 16,195 ✭✭✭✭

    Violent of not violent doesn't matter. Once the court ordered sentence is served all rights should be restored. If they are deemed to be unsafe for society they shouldn't be out. The supreme court should address this very fundamental principle.

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,125 ✭✭✭✭

    Agreed, Scout.

    You will find quite a few folks here disagree, however.

    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • plautusplautus Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭

    Do you also oppose sexual predator registration for convicted child rapists?

    Point is -- they had a free chance to obey the law, and they chose not to. We trusted them and got burned. Now they've served their prison time, but does that really wipe the slate clean?

  • plautusplautus Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭

    This matter is precisely the subject of a dissent authored by Justice Barret who argued that non-violent felons should not lose gun rights.

  • SCOUT5SCOUT5 Member Posts: 16,195 ✭✭✭✭

    Placing someone on a list will not keep them from raping again any more than prohibiting an armed robber from having a gun will keep him from getting a gun. Both measures may make you feel better but in reality they do not alter the person's actions. They will do what they are going to do regardless.

    People support laws like these because it makes them feel better. Coffee makes me feel better, should we pass a law that everyone has to drink coffee?

    A free man in this country has a right to possess a firearm. Once the sentence is served he is a free man. It's a fairly simple concept. If you think they are too dangerous to own a weapon then you should lobby for longer sentences which would directly affect the issue.

  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 37,953 ***** Forums Admin

    Scout hit the x-ring. As far as the SC, they have proved themselves worthless swamp dwellers too, and should just be disbanded.

  • Floyd621Floyd621 Member Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭✭

    They do what they are told to do..

  • onejaegeronejaeger Member Posts: 16 ✭✭

    You are either a Citizen or NOT. Creating different "Classes" of citizens is the path to trouble.

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,125 ✭✭✭✭

    Which is why she is one of the better selections for associate justice in the history of SCOTUS.

    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • plautusplautus Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭

    There have been different classes of citizens from day one and there is nothing problematic about it.

    What do you think slaves were?

    I have zero issue with different classes of citizens. People who are dependent on the state should not be able to vote on funding measures. Period.

    I would even go as far as saying the voting age should be returned to 21, like it was until 1971. The claim that "you can die for your country, you should be able to vote/drink" is garbage. Plenty of 16 and 17 year olds died for their country, and Alexander Hamilton wasn't even 21 when he was a proponent of the Constitution (which limited voting to property owners -- and you had to be 21 to own property).

    People who work to destroy the system (like violent criminals) should not immediately have all their rights restored upon leaving prison. They should have to prove they can function in society for 5-10 years, and then it should be automatic. If you can leave prison, and stay out of trouble and make yourself useful, then you get them back.

    The whole idea that every right should immediately return to someone upon leaving prison is based on a flawed understanding of the nature of individual rights and how they relate in a constitutional society.

    A person is born and lives with all of their rights until they prove they can't be trusted -- they are punished, and then they need to prove they can be trusted again. You can't do that in prison.

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,125 ✭✭✭✭

    Slaves were not citizens at all. Do not understand why this is raised.

    A felon exiting state control is a citizen.

    There is legitimate discussion as to when an ex-felon can be made whole. Perhaps it is automatic the second he is no longer incarcerated, or perhaps it is automatic at the end of a proscribed parole period.

    Either is better than the system we have today, where only those that can afford to pay for the process are made whole.

    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 63,708 ******

    If they can't be trusted with all their rights why would you advocate they be released or not made dead?

    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • SCOUT5SCOUT5 Member Posts: 16,195 ✭✭✭✭

    If a convict chooses to be discharged from prison early they agree to the parole period. During their parole period they have reduced rights. They agree to this in order to be released before their sentence is completed. Not being able to vote, own a firearm and other restrictions are part of the contract for paroled release. They could not agree to these restrictions and complete their sentence in prison, it is their choice to live under these restrictions. Once the parole period is over their rights should be intact.

  • plautusplautus Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2021

    Being released from prison does not mean they have paid their debt to society. Most post-prison release includes (as mentioned above) parole and a period of supervision.

    Prison is not the be-all with regard to repaying one's debt for being a violent criminal. They need to show they can function normally outside of prison before being allowed all the rights and privileges of a free person.

    Being "free" is more than being "outside prison." The issue isn't that they can't be trusted with all their rights, the issue is that we don't know if they can -- so we release them from prison and see what happens. If they function normally, then they can regain their rights.

    No one has ever made a sufficient argument that felons released from incarceration should immediately get all their rights back. They aren't completely free, simple as that. They have to prove they aren't still a danger. They can't do that sitting in a jail cell.

  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 63,708 ******

    First of all, yes sufficient argument has been made. To reiterate, what is there to for them to prove? 1st time offenders are an every hour occurrence, with no indicators whatsoever... 24/7/365, are we therefore untrusting of the never incarcerated? If incarceration is proving to not correct the bad behavior, the reform needs to be with what happens while incarcerated, not when they are free. Either the debt is paid and they are restored to life as before or it isn't. We can't continue to burden law abiding folks because someone else broke the law. End of story. This notion that I need to hoop jump because someone else screwed up is stupid. Your system only further punishes the law abiding on some hope that, even though the punishment didn't correct the crime, they're going to self correct when they're given more opportunity. LMAO @ that.

    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • plautusplautus Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2021

    What is there to prove?

    That they won't re-offend.

    Our system is based on "you get one chance to mess up. That is the history of English Common Law as well. You get one chance to mess up, then you have to prove you are able to function correctly.

    1st time offenders are absolutely an every hour occurrence -- and you know what else is? NO time offenders. Literally the vast majority of people, upwards of 98% of all adults -- are able to comport themselves in life without committing violent crime.

    Put it another way. In 2019, the FBI UCR says there were 1,203,808 violent crimes committed (Rape, Murder, Aggravated Assault, Robbery). If EACH of those 1.2 million crimes were committed by a separate, unique person, that means 1,203,808 people out of about 330 million people (2019 population) -- that's about 0.0036%. In other words, if EVERY violent crime was committed by a separate, unique person, that means that the other 99.9963% of the population did NOT commit any crime!

    However, we know that most criminals commit dozens of crimes.. It's none one crime per criminal, so the actual % of people who don't ever commit any violent crime is actually higher than 99.9963%!

    So yes, you get one chance to mess up. If you can't comport yourself like more than 99.99% of the population then you don't deserve to have all the rights of a free person until you can prove that you can behave properly and not rape and murder, like almost everyone else can.

    As far as your comment that "This notion that I need to hoop jump because someone else screwed up is stupid." doesn't make any sense. If you haven't committed any crimes, then you don't jump through any hoops at all. However, if you commit a violent crime, then you need to start jumping.

  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 63,708 ******

    You're a long ways away from the point if you don't think non-criminals are hoop jumping because criminals have to prove something before having their rights restored. I don't think meaningful discussion can be had until you realize that error.

    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • plautusplautus Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭

    Maybe you are confusing me with someone else, but I have never said non criminals should have to prove anything.

    Criminals -- people convicted of a crime -- have something to prove -- after they are released from prison.

    I don't even know what sort of "hoop jumping" non criminals have to perform due to criminals -- I have no iron in that fire/discussion at all. I have only referred to what happens regarding the rights of people who are released from incarceration.

  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 63,708 ******
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • plautusplautus Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭

    You mean I don't agree with you. That's fine. Maybe there is nothing to "get" because it's just a bad idea.

    Generally, if you want people to agree, you need to make a good argument in support. You have not done that.

    Living in freedom doesn't mean absolute freedom. When someone screws up, they don't get to keep going as usual, and I am all for alternative ways of dealing with those people that doesn't involve incarceration. But that doesn't mean they get to return to things as usual.

  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 63,708 ******

    No. I mean the distance between the point and you is measured in light years.

    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • plautusplautus Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2021

    Here is what you first said, your "point"--

    "If they can't be trusted with all their rights why would you advocate they be released or not made dead?"

    Because those aren't the only two choices and should not be.

    We don't have to jail or kill everyone who has done something violent, that's the point of parole and supervised release. Because once you've been in prison for 10+ years, you don't have the same worldview as someone who's never gone to prison and you may need some supervision. It's a good system.

  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 63,708 ******

    It's a horrible system because of the point you missed, and continue to miss.

    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • plautusplautus Member Posts: 129 ✭✭✭

    FYI you haven't made any points. You've stated an opinion but made no point.

    Let me show you how that's done:

    "The current system is horrible because X, Y, and/or Z"

    X, Y, Z = each, a reasonable or rational point that is minimally supported with facts or is stated as an opinion.

    You've made no such point in this thread. You just keep repeating that I "missed the point".

    Well sure. because you haven't made one.

    Repeating the same claim isn't "making a point." It's "stating an opinion."

    There you go.


    And just to be clear.


    Here is your first post in this thread:

    "If they can't be trusted with all their rights why would you advocate they be released or not made dead?"

    That's nto a point, that's a question.

    Here is your second post: So what do we have here?

    "First of all, yes sufficient argument has been made." Statement of opinion.

    "To reiterate, what is there to for them to prove? This is also not a point, this is a question. Which I answered.

    1st time offenders are an every hour occurrence, with no indicators whatsoever... 24/7/365, are we therefore untrusting of the never incarcerated? Another question. No point. Also answered.

    "If incarceration is proving to not correct the bad behavior, the reform needs to be with what happens while incarcerated, not when they are free." Incarceration is punishment, not reform. The premise that "incarceration should be reform" is a liberal idea. It is punishment, in the same manner that the death penalty isn't a deterrence, it is waste disposal.

    "Either the debt is paid and they are restored to life as before or it isn't." Statement of opinion. To which I answered: The debt is paid when we are satisfied the felon can conduct his affairs without resorting to violence. That cannot be proved while incarcerated.

    "We can't continue to burden law abiding folks because someone else broke the law. End of story. This notion that I need to hoop jump because someone else screwed up is stupid. Your system only further punishes the law abiding on some hope that, even though the punishment didn't correct the crime, they're going to self correct when they're given more opportunity. LMAO @ that." This has nothing to do with the issue of incarceration and post-incarceration parole obligations. Once they are released from prison, they have to earn their rights back by showing they can function.

    Now if you'd like to make a point, feel free. I didn't miss anything, you just didn't say anything more than state your opinions. You can "LMAO @ that" all you want, but repeating that I "didn't get the point" when you didn't make one just .. well.. contradicts your name in a big way.

    HAND.

  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 63,708 ******

    ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz. Again. The point you keep saying has nothing to do with it is the point you refuse to see. I'm done leading you to water only to have you guzzle your own swill.

    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
Sign In or Register to comment.