Felons that lawfully carry

[carolina guy]

I disagree with this. The only way this argument makes sense and is valid is if you assume that "fighting this as a rights issue" necessarily implies going through the courts.

But, even as a public policy issue, the only way to convince most people that it's OK to "allow" felons to retain their RKBA upon being released is precisely to frame it as a rights issue.

That is to say, if we leave rights out of it and simply argue "it's good public policy to let convicted felons buy guns", as eye95 insists we must do, we'll never win the debate.

I further submit that eye95 is quite aware of this rather obvious conclusion, and is therefore being intentionally duplicitous. It would seem that, although he suggests otherwise, in fact he would quite prefer to maintain the status quo in this regard, and is quite intent on sabotaging any efforts from within the RKBA community to challenge it. There's no other explanation for his frankly terrible advice: "don't fight this as a rights issue."

+1

 

[sharkey]

Quoting myself from an earlier thread.

Being convicted of a felony is more than "time." Felony status after time served is PART of the punishment, in addition to the time.

There are avenues in place to petition for restoration of rights for those who can demonstrate they are no longer deserving of the status.

Cite in common law or pre 20th century please?

ETA What you speak of being part of the punishment is referred to as PAROLE. Once the sentence is over it's over (should be).

ETA2. How can a God given (I'm atheist so natural) right be revoked?

ETA3. Notice how this was actually covered in the Constitution. That's for VOTING!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States

As of 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, in Kentucky, a felon's rights can now be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[SUP][3][/SUP] In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[SUP][4][/SUP] In July 2005, Democratic Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision.[SUP][3][/SUP] On October 31, 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld mass re-enfranchisement of ex-convicts. Nine other states disenfranchise felons for various lengths of time following their conviction. Except Maine and Vermont, every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Unlike most other laws that burden the right of citizens to vote based on some form of social status, felony disenfranchisement laws have been held to be constitutional. In Richardson v. Ramirez, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disenfranchised voters. The Court looked to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States which deny the vote to male citizens, except on the basis of "participation of rebellion, or other crime", will suffer a reduction in representation. Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an "affirmative sanction" of the practice of felon disenfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another. However, many critics argue that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment merely allows, but does not represent an endorsement of, felony disenfranchisement statutes as constitutional in light of the equal protection clause and is limited only to the issue of reduced representation. The Court did rule, however, in Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, 232 (1985) that a state's felony disenfranchisement provision will violate Equal Protection if it can be demonstrated that the provision, as enacted, had "both [an] impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact." A felony disenfranchisement law, which on its face is indiscriminate in nature, cannot be invalidated by the Supreme Court unless its enforcement is proven to racially discriminate and to have been enacted with racially discriminatory animus.
Currently, over 5.3 million people in the United States are denied the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement.[SUP][5][/SUP]

ETA 4: The only thing I can find supporting you is a Seventh Circuit ruling. (and it's in Chicago) bleh.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ADAM WILLIAMS . . .

www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=09-3174_002.pdf

ETA 5: Wow, look at this poll.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-convicted-felons-be-allowed-to-own-guns

Should convicted felons be allowed to own guns?

YES
79%

NO
21%

 

[OC for ME]

Black powder firearms.

What felony(s) are we referring to? State level or federal level.

States, some anyway, permit the ownership of firearms by felons.

<snip> Not returning his guns is anti-liberty and anti-citizen and so is anyone who agrees with that principal. <snip>

This is a truism.

The infringement of a enumerated right is repugnant to liberty-centric citizens. Laws that permit the infringement of enumerated rights are repugnant, but they are not unconstitutional until they are proven to be unconstitutional via due process, or repealed via the legislative process.

Public policy, whether supported by public opinion or not, is what deprives us of our enumerated rights. No crime need be committed to have our rights infringed upon by the state. There are only two avenues to correct this, the courts or the ballot box.

Does the "state" have the authority under the constitution to enact laws that are contrary to the constitution?

It may be easier to get a voter to think; "Hey, the government does not have the power to make this or that illegal."

Than it is to get a voter to think; "Should a felon be allowed to get his guns back? Hey, I don't give a rat's rear-end about guns and I have no interest in whether a segment of the population gets to own a gun."

I submit that fixing the "felons with guns" issue would be, should be, a by product of very narrowly defining state powers. States are starting to rebuke federal encroachments that are unrelated to the "felons with guns" issue. Once elected state reps stop federal encroachment into state affairs the voters can get their reps to focus on removing the state from the individual citizen's affairs.

 

[carolina guy]

States, some anyway, permit the ownership of firearms by felons.

This is a truism.

The infringement of a enumerated right is repugnant to liberty-centric citizens. Laws that permit the infringement of enumerated rights are repugnant, but they are not unconstitutional until they are proven to be unconstitutional via due process, or repealed via the legislative process.

Public policy, whether supported by public opinion or not, is what deprives us of our enumerated rights. No crime need be committed to have our rights infringed upon by the state. There are only two avenues to correct this, the courts or the ballot box.

Does the "state" have the authority under the constitution to enact laws that are contrary to the constitution?

It may be easier to get a voter to think; "Hey, the government does not have the power to make this or that illegal."

Than it is to get a voter to think; "Should a felon be allowed to get his guns back? Hey, I don't give a rat's rear-end about guns and I have no interest in whether a segment of the population gets to own a gun."

I submit that fixing the "felons with guns" issue would be, should be, a by product of very narrowly defining state powers. States are starting to rebuke federal encroachments that are unrelated to the "felons with guns" issue. Once elected state reps stop federal encroachment into state affairs the voters can get their reps to focus on removing the state from the individual citizen's affairs.

I would ask where the Constitutionality/Unconstitutionality of an issue/law can only be determined via "due process"...further, I would submit that there is no defined process/list of actors that are the only ones that can make that determination. But, I could be wrong and I would like to see the definitive citation for that in the Constitution as to whom can decide that a law is Unconstitutional.

 

[OC for ME]

Article III, Section Two: In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

This can be applied at the state level if the state constitution mentions such things.

 

[carolina guy]

Article III, Section Two: In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

This can be applied at the state level if the state constitution mentions such things.

As originally written in Article 3, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

There is no doubt (to me at least) that the federal courts are allowed to determine if a law or action is Constitutional...I suppose what I was asking is whom ELSE can determine Constitutionality. This section does not say that the judicial branch is the SOLE arbiter. I believe that The Several States and The People also have this power.

 

[georg jetson]

Well, that's easy for you to say.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

Well, that's easy for you to say.

It is too bad that the post you were replying to has been deleted/removed,
cause now it seems you were replying to carolina guy.

I will miss kevin roe, he only had time to reply to two threads, in giberish.

I wrote a very polite reply and welcome to our forum, in his introduction thread.
His intro was in giberish and my welcome was in extreme giberish.
I said in realspeek, "I look forward to his first bot/spam post" so I can report and get him banned.

I didnt report him to the mods, I wonder who did?
He would have been a "formidable apponant"!

 

[eye95]

...I didnt report him to the mods, I wonder who did?...

It was probably me. He struck me as the kind of spammer who posts stuff he thinks will fit into any thread. Then, after a few posts, he adds the spam to all of his posts by adding it to his signature. That scam is designed to keep from being reported and deleted. Didn't work.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I put an article link URL in news & political about Louisiana felons with RKABA.

And it is argued as a "rights" issue....hmmmmm.

 

[marshaul]

And it is argued as a "rights" issue....hmmmmm.

Nice catch. I feel like reiterating:

But, even as a public policy issue, the only way to convince most people that it's OK to "allow" felons to retain their RKBA upon being released is precisely to frame it as a rights issue.

That is to say, if we leave rights out of it and simply argue "it's good public policy to let convicted felons buy guns", as eye95 insists we must do, we'll never win the debate.

 

[carolina guy]

Nice catch. I feel like reiterating:

Keeping the focus on RIGHTS is the best way to do it. The Antis will always find a way to limit things when it is a policy discussion...after all, exclusions, loopholes, and restrictions are what policies are all about.

 

[sharkey]

I put an article link URL in news & political about Louisiana felons with RKABA.

I missed your link so here it is.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/...-felons-from-owning-guns-is-unconstitutional/