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.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
For the sake of argument, I'll give in to you. Firearm ownership has nothing to do with robbing a bank. Fair? That is not the question in this post. Fair? Should a? Ah hell.. you know the question. right?
Do you not understand your own argument?
We are discussing restoration of rights, are we not?
The right to keep and bear arms is a codified right, is it not?
Were you not the one who suggested that it is proper to restrict the rights of felons from owning/possessing firearms, because for example, the felon might use a legally owned firearm in committal of a second felony (bank robbery)?
I merely asked you what might prevent the felon from using a firearm in committal of said felony whether it was legal or not to own/possess said firearm.
You, then, being unable to counter that with any reasonable argument, appear to concede that making it illegal to own a firearm does NOT prevent a felony with one.
Are you now rescinding your position on restoration of rights?
I stand by what I posted, even though i deleted it. Nothing will prevent a felon from obtaining a firearm or using one in a crime. I'm stating that a felon should not be able to purchase a firearm. You have lost your right. Even if said crime has been paid for.
If not for prevention of crime, then why?
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
quote:I'm stating that a felon should not be able to purchase a firearm. You have lost your right. Even if said crime has been paid for.Other than the obvious fears and emotions involved in and driving such a call...where would the authority be found for government to do so?
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Because said person is the criminal?
If one's sentence is served, where is the constitutional authority for government to prohibit a citizen from ANY fundamental, constitutionally-enumerated right?
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
lt. 1 argument at a time. I have never before this post advocated for gun control. let me finish this first.
You seem intelligent. I bet you can walk and chew gum at the same time. Factually this IS the argument.I have done nothing but stick to the OP.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Because said person is the criminal?
so you are one of the ones I was referring to above.
quote:
One thing I noted from LT's post, after reading it a second time, is that the non-restoration of rights is, from what I can gather, intended to be a part of the "served sentence". Thus, in the view of some, it would seem, the sentence isn't truly served until the rights are restored.
Of course the problem elephant in the room of discussion, is that the scenario of release without rights, effectively restricts the innocent.
It's some sort of sadomasochistic philosophy that the guilty is not alone in his or her culpability, but that we as a free society have played the part of enabler, and must therefore be dually punished for the bad act.
If you can not see how punishing the criminal in this way punishes the law abiding, then I wish on you all the restrictions on your freedom that you ask for.[:(!][xx(]
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
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
lt. 1 argument at a time. I have never before this post advocated for gun control. let me finish this first.
Ladies and gentlemen, an enemy of the constitution is among us.[:(!][xx(]
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
I'm not gonna argue anymore. Gotta potroast in the slow cooker. I will say this though "once you cross the line and break the law, you have given up your name. not rights." "rights don't say whether i can morally obtain or use a gun." fair nuff?
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
I'm not gonna argue anymore. Gotta potroast in the slow cooker. I will say this though "once you cross the line and break the law, you have given up your name. not rights." "rights don't say whether i can morally obtain or use a gun." fair nuff?
You would spit on the Constitution and call it "fair enough"? Makes me want to puke.[xx(]
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
Scored a 90 on my asvab. failed the psych eval. go figure. I'm keepin my cool with this because there is a thing called morality. Call it the law of the land if you want. just what degree of sin is higher than another? are you king james? Can you be the publisher of the most plagairized book in history? I hold myself to a certain standard as do most men. those who don't do not deserve to walk this earth, much less carry a gun.
quote:I hold myself to a certain standard as do most men. those who don't do not deserve to walk this earth, much less carry a gun.
That's nice, however, government is the entity that you seemingly would hold as the 'power' or the 'authority' to enforce your desired deprivation of a citizen's fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
That being said and understood, where is the constitutional authority for said government to do so, even if the massive majority of our citizenry favors your remedy or approach.
That pesky ol' Constitution thingy, protecting the minority and/or the individual from the desires and whims of the majority....
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
There is no constitutional authority. Happy?
I am pleased that our founder had the foresight to force such restrictions on government into the Bill of Rights.
This discussion illustrates two related things.
One, that such controlling human nature and resultant government collectivism is inevitable.
Two, that we as a nation have turned our backs on such fundamental issues of limitations on government and on individual liberty, due to #1.
That aside, since there is clearly no constitutional authority to abrogate Amendment II's prohibition on government from infringing upon a citizens RKBA, then your desires are just that...desires, and they have no more validity than any other anti or extra-constitutional action take by government.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Scored a 90 on my asvab. failed the psych eval. go figure. I'm keepin my cool with this because there is a thing called morality. Call it the law of the land if you want. just what degree of sin is higher than another? are you king james? Can you be the publisher of the most plagairazed book in history? I hold myself to a certain standard as do most men. those who don't do not deserve to walk this earth, much less carry a gun.
you have a gift for non sequitur. But if you want to go the morality route in this discussion, I would argue that it it is amoral to deprive me of my rights in the name of security. There seems to be a quote related to that in my signature attached to each post. I would urge you to check it out.
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
quote:Originally posted by sandwarrior
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The words 'always' and 'never' should not be in your vocabulary when dealing with human beings. There are VERY FEW times when those words apply in the real world!!!![;)]
So, in the case of a pedophile returned to society, he should "always" get his rights back? I'm thinking "never". If he "ever" does regain his freedom. Same with habitually violent criminals.
See red above...so are pedophiles worse than murderers...and rapist...bottom line the government decides minimum and max sentences and the government decides when the above are released if ever.. what is serving the time really for, of you arent restored to full "rights" when you are released...my 2 cents
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
There is no constitutional authority. Happy?
I am pleased that our founder had the foresight to force such restrictions on government into the Bill of Rights.
This discussion illustrates two related things.
One, that such controlling human nature and resultant government collectivism is inevitable.
Two, that we as a nation have turned our backs on such fundamental issues of limitations on government and on individual liberty, due to #1.
That aside, since there is clearly no constitutional authority to abrogate Amendment II's prohibition on government from infringing upon a citizens RKBA, then your desires are just that...desires, and they have no more validity than any other anti or extra-constitutional action take by government.
there are enemies of liberty aplenty. I too am thankful the founders, reluctantly, codified some of the more important rights in the Constitution.
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
When our founding fathers wrote the constitution, they also gave us checks and balances. Legislative, executive and judicial. The men who wrote the constitution, were not ignorant of the future. Congress enacts legislation, the president either signs or vetos. The if needed it can be challenged all the way up to the supreme court.
Now, gun control and all its rules and regulations, can be subject to court challange. I wish those here who are strict interpretationists, would file a lawsuit challenging the government and its rules, instead of complaining of constsntly being infringed.
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
When our founding fathers wrote the constitution, they also gave us checks and balances. Legislative, executive and judicial. The men who wrote the constitution, were not ignorant of the future. Congress enacts legislation, the president either signs or vetos. The if needed it can be challenged all the way up to the supreme court.
Now, gun control and all its rules and regulations, can be subject to court challange. I wish those here who are strict interpretationists, would file a lawsuit challenging the government and its rules, instead of complaining of constsntly being infringed.
Are you willing to contribute monetarily to the legal battle that would ensue? I am certainly willing to bring the suit, I just do not have the means to do so.
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
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
David Scott Blackwell has repaid his debt to society, by Georgia standards.
He served five years in prison for selling drugs. He successfully finished his probation. He was even granted a full pardon by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, which would allow him to possess a gun in that state.
But should Blackwell, now living in Franklin, be able to own a gun here?
Blackwell is suing the state after being denied a gun permit in Tennessee, arguing that the Georgia pardon fully restored his rights - even the right to bear arms. It's a battle being played out in other states as well, as lawmakers in places such as Alaska and Oregon have mulled over laws to loosen firearms restrictions on felons who have had some of their rights restored.
It also has brought out unusually vocal support from Second Amendment advocates, who in prior years have been hesitant to support some felons' rights to possess firearms. Among those advocates is the Tennessee Firearms Association, which downplays the fact that Blackwell is a convicted felon, instead painting it as a conflict between the constitutional powers of the pardon and Tennessee lawmakers who have written laws to restrict felons' rights.
This marks the first time in the association's 16 years that it has filed a brief in any lawsuit.
"Georgia's pardon system granted him a full pardon, and it specifically says he has the right to purchase and acquire guns," said John Harris, a Nashville attorney who serves as the volunteer executive director for the Tennessee Firearms Association. "This is a question of, can the Tennessee General Assembly pass a statute that restricts the constitutional authority of another branch of the government?"
Blackwell failed to convince a Davidson County Chancery Court judge, but has appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently heard arguments and is considering the case.
"The pardon restores constitutional rights - that's what a pardon does," said Blackwell's attorney, David Raybin. "Therefore, it restores his right to a firearm. That's it, in its simplest terms."
But the state is opposing Blackwell, saying laws passed by the Tennessee legislature prohibiting felons from possessing firearms apply to those whose rights have been restored.
"It is reasonable for the legislature to determine that felony drug offenders, even those who subsequently receive a pardon, are likely to misuse firearms in the future," wrote the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. "This is due to the well-known connection between guns and drugs."
A full pardon
Court records show Blackwell was convicted in 1989 in Georgia on three counts of selling cocaine. He was sentenced to nine years in prison and fined $3,000. In 2003, he applied and received a full, unconditional pardon. And that pardon spelled out what Blackwell was regaining.
"All civil and political rights, including the right to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm . are hereby restored," the Georgia pardon reads.
In 2009, having moved to Tennessee, Blackwell sought out information on whether he could possess a firearm here, writing to state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, who in turn asked Tennessee's attorney general for guidance.
The attorney general said Blackwell could not own a gun here.
Raybin said that legislation - like Tennessee's prohibition on felons owning guns - is trumped by powers enshrined in a state's constitution - like the power to pardon and restore felons' rights. When the two conflict, the constitution should win, he said.
"A man having a pardon trumps whatever legislative restrictions there might be on a convicted felon carrying a firearm," he said.
The Tennessee Firearms Association has taken up that argument as central to its interest in the case, as opposed to any Second Amendment issues, Harris said. He said that he understands the state's interest in blocking violent felons from obtaining firearms. But he said it makes little sense to block other felons if they've had their rights restored.
"If it's a nonviolent felony, grant them their full rights of citizenship," he said. "If you're going to restore some guy's right to vote, to become a legislator and make policy or to sit on a jury, then what's the hesitation on the gun issue?"
State wins 2002 case
The Tennessee Supreme Court decided a similar case in 2002, in which a violent felon who had his rights restored by the courts in Tennessee was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. It ruled in favor of the state, saying the felon couldn't possess a handgun, even with his rights restored.
The Attorney General's Office argues that Tennessee's constitution doesn't bar the legislature from removing felons' rights and that it is well established that states can put some restrictions on gun ownership.
"The constitutional right to possess a firearm is not absolute," attorneys for the state wrote.
But Raybin is banking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Heller, to play a bigger role. That court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens individual, constitutional rights to possess firearms. Raybin argues that a full restoration of a felon's civil rights must therefore include their Second Amendment rights.
"They constitutionalized the right to a firearm, just like a right to free speech, the right to religion," Raybin said. "It is that strong."
Raybin said the Blackwell case may be the first in Tennessee to use the Heller decision. The appeals court is expected to take several weeks before ruling on it.
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
No, they should be executed...................therefore, no gun rights.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And after I read it, I gather that, say, after a corrupt police detective is reported by his partner to his superiors following his shakedowns of drug dealers, and heroin addiction as well, the cop is arrested and convicted, and his partner is subsequently found murdered while the detective is out on bail, the cop spends seven years in prison and another three on probation for the corruption (never charged with the murder due to lack of evidence), and should then have all rights restored.
Including his right to be re-hired and re-armed in his previous capacity.
Why not ?
Is any of that the result of legal access to guns? I don't follow your logic on that at all.
Sorry, this thread seems to have gotten away from me.
I was simply carrying the claim of automatic restoration of rights as fact, to conclusion.
The right to property (a job) is as fundamental, if not more, to our legal system.
If we are going to assume that state laws should not include barring felons from gun possession as a part of the state sentencing laws, then the same logic may apply to any other rights lost through adjudication .
Leading to some strange conclusions and situations.
A lifetime bar to possession APCF is neither a surprise, nor an unnatural law.
After all, if not a subscriber to the 14th amendment, there is no constitutional bar to such state laws.
Of course the real issue is with the sentencing of the convict, not of the restoration of rights. What purpose does sentencing a man to 7 years for murder accomplish, but to instill an "I got away with murder" sentiment that would carry onward?
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
For me, anyone having served whatever sentence the courts deemed appropriate to their transgression should be returned to society with all rights restored. Since we in this country have one of the highest percentages of incarcerated citizens the expense is considerable and concessions are made with regard to length of sentence for purely practical means. IMO that is wrong. Appropriate sentencing and adherence to the conditions of sentencing would be a necessary cornerstone to ensuring the restoring of rights on completion of the sentence.
I believe re-establishing a vested interest in society and regaining one's place fully is required if one is shooting for the elimination of future criminal behavior. For sex offenders it is a little different. I don't believe having them on lists is in any way helpful to either them or the community. If they are not trusted then keep them locked up. No half measures seem to work too well.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And after I read it, I gather that, say, after a corrupt police detective is reported by his partner to his superiors following his shakedowns of drug dealers, and heroin addiction as well, the cop is arrested and convicted, and his partner is subsequently found murdered while the detective is out on bail, the cop spends seven years in prison and another three on probation for the corruption (never charged with the murder due to lack of evidence), and should then have all rights restored.
Including his right to be re-hired and re-armed in his previous capacity.
Why not ?
Is any of that the result of legal access to guns? I don't follow your logic on that at all.
Sorry, this thread seems to have gotten away from me.
I was simply carrying the claim of automatic restoration of rights as fact, to conclusion.
The right to property (a job) is as fundamental, if not more, to our legal system.
If we are going to assume that state laws should not include barring felons from gun possession as a part of the state sentencing laws, then the same logic may apply to any other rights lost through adjudication .
Leading to some strange conclusions and situations.
A lifetime bar to possession APCF is neither a surprise, nor an unnatural law.
After all, if not a subscriber to the 14th amendment, there is no constitutional bar to such state laws.
Of course the real issue is with the sentencing of the convict, not of the restoration of rights. What purpose does sentencing a man to 7 years for murder accomplish, but to instill an "I got away with murder" sentiment that would carry onward?
I didn't say the guy was convicted of murder.
Funny things can happen with juries and prosecutors.
Maybe it ended up as involuntary homicide.
That part is immaterial to the well known fact that what you know cannot always be proven.
States apparently have the authority to restrict gun possession to anyone, if I am following the argument here in this thread.
Still, the issue is with the punishment of the criminal and not the restoration of rights. You only argue that his rights not be restored because you have some knowledge that is outside of what can be proven or admitted in court. If he is not convicted of any crime in a court of law, why would you feel he needs to have rights restricted in any capacity?
Of course courts are not perfect and we have laws that often protect criminal and not victim. Why not address those issues and leave fundamental rights alone?
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
It use to be the law,if you were a convicted felon,you could not vote or own a firearm.The laws have changed.If you pay your debt,you should be reinstated to your full citizenship.This includes all people.At one time rape was the death penalty! What difference does gun ownership have to do with citizenship?
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
It use to be the law,if you were a convicted felon,you could not vote or own a firearm.The laws have changed.If you pay your debt,you should be reinstated to your full citizenship.This includes all people.At one time rape was the death penalty! What difference does gun ownership have to do with citizenship?
If those convicted of crimes against a person have the right to to be armed then the law should read if they use those arms to victimize AGAIN they should be eliminated for good!!!![^]
Comments
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
For the sake of argument, I'll give in to you. Firearm ownership has nothing to do with robbing a bank. Fair? That is not the question in this post. Fair? Should a? Ah hell.. you know the question. right?
Do you not understand your own argument?
We are discussing restoration of rights, are we not?
The right to keep and bear arms is a codified right, is it not?
Were you not the one who suggested that it is proper to restrict the rights of felons from owning/possessing firearms, because for example, the felon might use a legally owned firearm in committal of a second felony (bank robbery)?
I merely asked you what might prevent the felon from using a firearm in committal of said felony whether it was legal or not to own/possess said firearm.
You, then, being unable to counter that with any reasonable argument, appear to concede that making it illegal to own a firearm does NOT prevent a felony with one.
Are you now rescinding your position on restoration of rights?
I stand by what I posted, even though i deleted it. Nothing will prevent a felon from obtaining a firearm or using one in a crime. I'm stating that a felon should not be able to purchase a firearm. You have lost your right. Even if said crime has been paid for.
If not for prevention of crime, then why?
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
Because said person is the criminal?
If one's sentence is served, where is the constitutional authority for government to prohibit a citizen from ANY fundamental, constitutionally-enumerated right?
lt. 1 argument at a time. I have never before this post advocated for gun control. let me finish this first.
You seem intelligent. I bet you can walk and chew gum at the same time. Factually this IS the argument.I have done nothing but stick to the OP.
Because said person is the criminal?
so you are one of the ones I was referring to above.
quote:
One thing I noted from LT's post, after reading it a second time, is that the non-restoration of rights is, from what I can gather, intended to be a part of the "served sentence". Thus, in the view of some, it would seem, the sentence isn't truly served until the rights are restored.
Of course the problem elephant in the room of discussion, is that the scenario of release without rights, effectively restricts the innocent.
It's some sort of sadomasochistic philosophy that the guilty is not alone in his or her culpability, but that we as a free society have played the part of enabler, and must therefore be dually punished for the bad act.
If you can not see how punishing the criminal in this way punishes the law abiding, then I wish on you all the restrictions on your freedom that you ask for.[:(!][xx(]
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
lt. 1 argument at a time. I have never before this post advocated for gun control. let me finish this first.
Ladies and gentlemen, an enemy of the constitution is among us.[:(!][xx(]
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
I'm not gonna argue anymore. Gotta potroast in the slow cooker. I will say this though "once you cross the line and break the law, you have given up your name. not rights." "rights don't say whether i can morally obtain or use a gun." fair nuff?
You would spit on the Constitution and call it "fair enough"? Makes me want to puke.[xx(]
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
That's nice, however, government is the entity that you seemingly would hold as the 'power' or the 'authority' to enforce your desired deprivation of a citizen's fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
That being said and understood, where is the constitutional authority for said government to do so, even if the massive majority of our citizenry favors your remedy or approach.
That pesky ol' Constitution thingy, protecting the minority and/or the individual from the desires and whims of the majority....
There is no constitutional authority. Happy?
I am pleased that our founder had the foresight to force such restrictions on government into the Bill of Rights.
This discussion illustrates two related things.
One, that such controlling human nature and resultant government collectivism is inevitable.
Two, that we as a nation have turned our backs on such fundamental issues of limitations on government and on individual liberty, due to #1.
That aside, since there is clearly no constitutional authority to abrogate Amendment II's prohibition on government from infringing upon a citizens RKBA, then your desires are just that...desires, and they have no more validity than any other anti or extra-constitutional action take by government.
Scored a 90 on my asvab. failed the psych eval. go figure. I'm keepin my cool with this because there is a thing called morality. Call it the law of the land if you want. just what degree of sin is higher than another? are you king james? Can you be the publisher of the most plagairazed book in history? I hold myself to a certain standard as do most men. those who don't do not deserve to walk this earth, much less carry a gun.
you have a gift for non sequitur. But if you want to go the morality route in this discussion, I would argue that it it is amoral to deprive me of my rights in the name of security. There seems to be a quote related to that in my signature attached to each post. I would urge you to check it out.
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
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The words 'always' and 'never' should not be in your vocabulary when dealing with human beings. There are VERY FEW times when those words apply in the real world!!!![;)]
So, in the case of a pedophile returned to society, he should "always" get his rights back? I'm thinking "never". If he "ever" does regain his freedom. Same with habitually violent criminals.
See red above...so are pedophiles worse than murderers...and rapist...bottom line the government decides minimum and max sentences and the government decides when the above are released if ever.. what is serving the time really for, of you arent restored to full "rights" when you are released...my 2 cents
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
There is no constitutional authority. Happy?
I am pleased that our founder had the foresight to force such restrictions on government into the Bill of Rights.
This discussion illustrates two related things.
One, that such controlling human nature and resultant government collectivism is inevitable.
Two, that we as a nation have turned our backs on such fundamental issues of limitations on government and on individual liberty, due to #1.
That aside, since there is clearly no constitutional authority to abrogate Amendment II's prohibition on government from infringing upon a citizens RKBA, then your desires are just that...desires, and they have no more validity than any other anti or extra-constitutional action take by government.
there are enemies of liberty aplenty. I too am thankful the founders, reluctantly, codified some of the more important rights in the Constitution.
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
Now, gun control and all its rules and regulations, can be subject to court challange. I wish those here who are strict interpretationists, would file a lawsuit challenging the government and its rules, instead of complaining of constsntly being infringed.
When our founding fathers wrote the constitution, they also gave us checks and balances. Legislative, executive and judicial. The men who wrote the constitution, were not ignorant of the future. Congress enacts legislation, the president either signs or vetos. The if needed it can be challenged all the way up to the supreme court.
Now, gun control and all its rules and regulations, can be subject to court challange. I wish those here who are strict interpretationists, would file a lawsuit challenging the government and its rules, instead of complaining of constsntly being infringed.
Are you willing to contribute monetarily to the legal battle that would ensue? I am certainly willing to bring the suit, I just do not have the means to do so.
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
David Scott Blackwell has repaid his debt to society, by Georgia standards.
He served five years in prison for selling drugs. He successfully finished his probation. He was even granted a full pardon by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, which would allow him to possess a gun in that state.
But should Blackwell, now living in Franklin, be able to own a gun here?
Blackwell is suing the state after being denied a gun permit in Tennessee, arguing that the Georgia pardon fully restored his rights - even the right to bear arms. It's a battle being played out in other states as well, as lawmakers in places such as Alaska and Oregon have mulled over laws to loosen firearms restrictions on felons who have had some of their rights restored.
It also has brought out unusually vocal support from Second Amendment advocates, who in prior years have been hesitant to support some felons' rights to possess firearms. Among those advocates is the Tennessee Firearms Association, which downplays the fact that Blackwell is a convicted felon, instead painting it as a conflict between the constitutional powers of the pardon and Tennessee lawmakers who have written laws to restrict felons' rights.
This marks the first time in the association's 16 years that it has filed a brief in any lawsuit.
"Georgia's pardon system granted him a full pardon, and it specifically says he has the right to purchase and acquire guns," said John Harris, a Nashville attorney who serves as the volunteer executive director for the Tennessee Firearms Association. "This is a question of, can the Tennessee General Assembly pass a statute that restricts the constitutional authority of another branch of the government?"
Blackwell failed to convince a Davidson County Chancery Court judge, but has appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently heard arguments and is considering the case.
"The pardon restores constitutional rights - that's what a pardon does," said Blackwell's attorney, David Raybin. "Therefore, it restores his right to a firearm. That's it, in its simplest terms."
But the state is opposing Blackwell, saying laws passed by the Tennessee legislature prohibiting felons from possessing firearms apply to those whose rights have been restored.
"It is reasonable for the legislature to determine that felony drug offenders, even those who subsequently receive a pardon, are likely to misuse firearms in the future," wrote the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. "This is due to the well-known connection between guns and drugs."
A full pardon
Court records show Blackwell was convicted in 1989 in Georgia on three counts of selling cocaine. He was sentenced to nine years in prison and fined $3,000. In 2003, he applied and received a full, unconditional pardon. And that pardon spelled out what Blackwell was regaining.
"All civil and political rights, including the right to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm . are hereby restored," the Georgia pardon reads.
In 2009, having moved to Tennessee, Blackwell sought out information on whether he could possess a firearm here, writing to state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin, who in turn asked Tennessee's attorney general for guidance.
The attorney general said Blackwell could not own a gun here.
Raybin said that legislation - like Tennessee's prohibition on felons owning guns - is trumped by powers enshrined in a state's constitution - like the power to pardon and restore felons' rights. When the two conflict, the constitution should win, he said.
"A man having a pardon trumps whatever legislative restrictions there might be on a convicted felon carrying a firearm," he said.
The Tennessee Firearms Association has taken up that argument as central to its interest in the case, as opposed to any Second Amendment issues, Harris said. He said that he understands the state's interest in blocking violent felons from obtaining firearms. But he said it makes little sense to block other felons if they've had their rights restored.
"If it's a nonviolent felony, grant them their full rights of citizenship," he said. "If you're going to restore some guy's right to vote, to become a legislator and make policy or to sit on a jury, then what's the hesitation on the gun issue?"
State wins 2002 case
The Tennessee Supreme Court decided a similar case in 2002, in which a violent felon who had his rights restored by the courts in Tennessee was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. It ruled in favor of the state, saying the felon couldn't possess a handgun, even with his rights restored.
The Attorney General's Office argues that Tennessee's constitution doesn't bar the legislature from removing felons' rights and that it is well established that states can put some restrictions on gun ownership.
"The constitutional right to possess a firearm is not absolute," attorneys for the state wrote.
But Raybin is banking on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, called Heller, to play a bigger role. That court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens individual, constitutional rights to possess firearms. Raybin argues that a full restoration of a felon's civil rights must therefore include their Second Amendment rights.
"They constitutionalized the right to a firearm, just like a right to free speech, the right to religion," Raybin said. "It is that strong."
Raybin said the Blackwell case may be the first in Tennessee to use the Heller decision. The appeals court is expected to take several weeks before ruling on it.
http://tinyurl.com/3m26d67
No question about it, YES!
quote:Originally posted by lt496
When one's sentence is served and one is returned to society, one's rights should be fully restored.
Anything else is not constitutional nor in-line with the principles of our Republic.
So when the child molester or child rapist is returned to society after serving their sentence, their name should not be on a national pedofile registery either?
The only good thing about pedofiles, they drive slow in school zones.[:0]
No, they should be executed...................therefore, no gun rights.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And after I read it, I gather that, say, after a corrupt police detective is reported by his partner to his superiors following his shakedowns of drug dealers, and heroin addiction as well, the cop is arrested and convicted, and his partner is subsequently found murdered while the detective is out on bail, the cop spends seven years in prison and another three on probation for the corruption (never charged with the murder due to lack of evidence), and should then have all rights restored.
Including his right to be re-hired and re-armed in his previous capacity.
Why not ?
Is any of that the result of legal access to guns? I don't follow your logic on that at all.
Sorry, this thread seems to have gotten away from me.
I was simply carrying the claim of automatic restoration of rights as fact, to conclusion.
The right to property (a job) is as fundamental, if not more, to our legal system.
If we are going to assume that state laws should not include barring felons from gun possession as a part of the state sentencing laws, then the same logic may apply to any other rights lost through adjudication .
Leading to some strange conclusions and situations.
A lifetime bar to possession APCF is neither a surprise, nor an unnatural law.
After all, if not a subscriber to the 14th amendment, there is no constitutional bar to such state laws.
Of course the real issue is with the sentencing of the convict, not of the restoration of rights. What purpose does sentencing a man to 7 years for murder accomplish, but to instill an "I got away with murder" sentiment that would carry onward?
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
I believe re-establishing a vested interest in society and regaining one's place fully is required if one is shooting for the elimination of future criminal behavior. For sex offenders it is a little different. I don't believe having them on lists is in any way helpful to either them or the community. If they are not trusted then keep them locked up. No half measures seem to work too well.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And after I read it, I gather that, say, after a corrupt police detective is reported by his partner to his superiors following his shakedowns of drug dealers, and heroin addiction as well, the cop is arrested and convicted, and his partner is subsequently found murdered while the detective is out on bail, the cop spends seven years in prison and another three on probation for the corruption (never charged with the murder due to lack of evidence), and should then have all rights restored.
Including his right to be re-hired and re-armed in his previous capacity.
Why not ?
Is any of that the result of legal access to guns? I don't follow your logic on that at all.
Sorry, this thread seems to have gotten away from me.
I was simply carrying the claim of automatic restoration of rights as fact, to conclusion.
The right to property (a job) is as fundamental, if not more, to our legal system.
If we are going to assume that state laws should not include barring felons from gun possession as a part of the state sentencing laws, then the same logic may apply to any other rights lost through adjudication .
Leading to some strange conclusions and situations.
A lifetime bar to possession APCF is neither a surprise, nor an unnatural law.
After all, if not a subscriber to the 14th amendment, there is no constitutional bar to such state laws.
Of course the real issue is with the sentencing of the convict, not of the restoration of rights. What purpose does sentencing a man to 7 years for murder accomplish, but to instill an "I got away with murder" sentiment that would carry onward?
I didn't say the guy was convicted of murder.
Funny things can happen with juries and prosecutors.
Maybe it ended up as involuntary homicide.
That part is immaterial to the well known fact that what you know cannot always be proven.
States apparently have the authority to restrict gun possession to anyone, if I am following the argument here in this thread.
Still, the issue is with the punishment of the criminal and not the restoration of rights. You only argue that his rights not be restored because you have some knowledge that is outside of what can be proven or admitted in court. If he is not convicted of any crime in a court of law, why would you feel he needs to have rights restricted in any capacity?
Of course courts are not perfect and we have laws that often protect criminal and not victim. Why not address those issues and leave fundamental rights alone?
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
: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
If he has met the terms of his punishment, his rights should be restored. All of them.
It use to be the law,if you were a convicted felon,you could not vote or own a firearm.The laws have changed.If you pay your debt,you should be reinstated to your full citizenship.This includes all people.At one time rape was the death penalty! What difference does gun ownership have to do with citizenship?
If those convicted of crimes against a person have the right to to be armed then the law should read if they use those arms to victimize AGAIN they should be eliminated for good!!!![^]