imported post
amlevin wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
the right of the people [you and me and everyone] to keep [own] and bear [carry] shall not be infringed [violated or impeded in any way, shape or form].
So what would your plan be to keep firearms out of the hands of Criminals, especially convicted criminals?
If I recall correctly, numerous Courts, including SCOTUS have found that reasonable restrictions designed to accomplish the above are not infringements on the Law Abiding Citizen's Rights.
Have you got a better plan?
Yeah, it's real simple:
If they're a felon or criminal and you feel they're still a danger to society, keep them locked up in prison.
If you're releasing them to society under terms such as probation or parole, then you are allowing them to voluntarily abridge their own rights as a condition for early release (or avoidance) of prison, and you restrict their rights.
However, if a felon or criminal has been released from all terms and is considered to be fully rehabilitated, then they have the right to keep and bear arms. If you can't trust them, why'd you let them out of prison?
By the way, I can make this argument from a constitutional standpoint
without referring to supreme court cases. In fact the constitution defines the terms quite clearly.
Here's the argument:
Amendment XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The important term in Amendment 13 is "involuntary servitude" which is specifically listed as a "punishment for a crime whereof the party" has been "duly convicted."
Amendment XV Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In Amendment 15, the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the U.S. on account of previous condition of servitude.
Thus, convicted felons who are no longer under terms of involuntary servitude should be allowed to vote as per amendment 13 and 15. (Yes, I realize that the intent of amd 13 was to abolish slavery and the intent of amd 15 was to allow former slaves to vote, but the language is quite clear, otherwise they wouldn't have made the exclusion for involuntary servitude to be permitted for criminals who have been duly convicted under amd 13.)
Now, making the argument that amendment 2 applies to all persons is quite straightforward.
Amendment II
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 doesn't say "certain people" or the "non-criminal people" or "people other than felons" it says, quite simply, the people. In the 1700s did they have prisoners and people incarcerated? Yes they did, and while they were incarcerated they did not have the same liberties that
free men had. Their liberties were restricted as a punishment for their crimes. (Sometimes men were hanged, such as in treason. This capital punishment is the ultimate deprivation of liberty; it is permanent.)
However, when those convicted were released from incarceration, having served their time, they were again considered free men and all liberties applied to them once-more. But we infringe upon those rights under the "incorporation" or lack thereof by the 14th amendment.
The notion that the first 13 amendments did not apply to the people, but instead only limited the government until 1868 when the 14th amendment came along and incorporated
some of the earlier amendments is laughable. Otherwise, the federal government could have trampled all over the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 13th amendments anytime they wanted between 1791 and 1867 when it came to the people's rights, since until the 14th came along and saved us all, the first 13 only limited the feds, and didn't actually give the
people any rights.
This modern take on the Constitution flies in the face of the following amendments: the 2nd (the right of the
people to keep and bear arms) and most importantly the 10th, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." which is very clear in stating (and implying) that all rights are reserved to the states or the people if not the state.
Thus, the modern interpretation requiring incorporation under the 14th and allowing reasonable restrictions on rights is absolutely bonkers. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.