Free felons have a constitutional, moral, and natural right to bear arms

M

MasterPieceArms.com

Moderator
Obviously, the "right" to bear arms for all americans became a privilege in 1934, but the entirety of that privilege wasn't totally at the discretion of the federal government quite yet.

When the federal tyranny invented the interesting concept of being "legally disabled" (disabled by them the feds) effectively in 1968, the privilege to bear arms then became 100% at the discretion of the federal tyrants. Usually only lawyers recognize that a legal disability is actually the exact opposite of a civil right (since a civil "right" is a gift from government, not to be confused with an inalienable and bona fide RIGHT which is what the 2nd amendment is).

Translation: when you allow government to give out privileges (in the form of civil "rights," which is actually creating protected classes), it thus has power to take away privileges (in the form of legal "disabilities"), and frequently, actual rights get caught up in the dragnet.

Free felons not being "allowed" to own firearms is patently unconstitutional, immoral, and unnatural. It shows what an overbearing and intrusive federal "government" we have to deal with.

In the 20th century when the federal tyrants were making their power thefts, the situation was made more complex by their complete perversion of the meaning and usage of the term "felon." Government schools of course do not teach that the actual meaning of that term (before non crimes like drug possession/sales were elevated to felonies) refers to someone who is so dangerous as to warrant A. permanent arrest, and/or B. execution. Now, calling non crimes felonies is government's way of punishing it's non compliant children in a more severe way.

No one who claims to support the constitution could/would ever vote to convict someone on a mere possession charge (be it gun or drug).
 
Ahh, the giant can of worms has been opened. This could be interesting, if you go all the way and say that violent felons should be allowed to carry arms.


BTW, I'm with you on your main point, and I do go all the way with it.
 
....and the question is,,,if they are still dangerous, WHY are they back on the street?
Several states have recently reversed their stands on voting felons. Something about no taxation without representation.

I think that that violent felons should have the opportunity to at least present their case to the court and have their rights returned to them if they have been a decent, productive citizen. Maybe present it as a "shall issue" if the courts can find nothing wrong.
 
Amendment V
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Click to expand...

from yahoo dictionary (emphasis mine)
lib·er·ty (lbr-t) KEY
NOUN:
pl. lib·er·ties
1- a-The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b-The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c-The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
See Synonyms - freedom.
2- a-Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
b-A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
to me that says you can have your rights to bear arms revoked by a jury of your peers. just my opinion, no need to flame me.
 
Well put hawken, I knew this in my head, but you pulled out dictionary and spelled it out. You lose many rights when convicted of a felony. They do that so people don't go around commiting felonies.
 
I wish that were true.

Consider the number of offenses that are misdemeanors in one venue, but felonies in another, state-to-state, fed-to-state. Consider the escalation of misdemeanors to felonies that has marked the recent history of crime legislation at state and federal levels. Consider who defines "felony". Who gets to define "violent"? Pretty easy from where we sit, eh? When the legislature passes poorly worded law, it falls to a bureau, commission, department or agency to fulfill the definition and enforce that definition. They have, at that point, participated in "legislation". That is too wrong for words, but it is routine. And the worst part is that it mixes up those that really have committed an offense worth losing some serious civil rights with those that haven't. The label "felon" just says it all for some.

The last few years, I have come way off my former hard stance of "screw 'em, they're felons".

There is such a thing as bad law. It abounds in a society that has come to expect a law for everything, every possible specific offense. Laws to "send a message". Laws to "prevent".

The most abused laws in this land are laws enacted to prevent crime. Remember ... if it can be abused, it will be. It's just a matter of time. When you hear a prosecutor start talking about protecting society, it's time to head for cover. At this point they're usually drooling and get that Pat Robertson grin. ;)
 
to me that says you can have your rights to bear arms revoked by a jury of your peers. just my opinion, no need to flame me.
Click to expand...

But why single out the Second Amendment? Can your right to free speech, freedom of religion, or jury trial be revoked by a jury of your peers?

If you can set aside one article of the BoR via jury, all of them are fair game. Once they're out of jail, they don't lose their right to worship as they please, nor do they lose the right to not be put in double jeopardy. Singling out the Second Amendment as a "special" and "dangerous" right is both making the anti-gun point, and setting a dangerous precedent when it comes to the nature of our "inalienable" rights.

This is another issue where one ahs to see past emotion and argue from reason. Few people feel comfortable conceding a right to keep and bear arms for released felons, but if your philosophy regarding the rights enumerated in the BoR is consistent, you have to argue for that right. Everything else renders the entire Bill of Rights invalid and pointless.

Then there's sensop's excellent point about the many and varied things that can make one a felon these days. Having the wrong piece of steel at the end of your rifle will make you a felon in California, for example. If you argue that "Felons have no right to guns", then all the anti-gun people have to do to completely negate the Second Amendment is to make as many things as possible a felony, so they can get the guns out of the hands of as many people as possible. In the absence of broad support for an ouright gun ban, building on the emotional "guns/felon" thing is the easiest and most effective way for them to achieve their goal, with the active help of those who would otherwise fight them tooth and nail.
 
Advocating for felons to own firearms, plays right into the anti's hands, and paints us all as dangerous "gun nuts" who don't care for the public safety.
 
Just owning guns does that already as far as the anti-gun crowd is concerned, rebar.

Personally, I am not willing to invalidate the entire Bill of Rights just for the sake of appearance. Does the BoR enumerate inalienable rights or not? If yes, you have to apply that notion consistently. If not, then stop all the complaints about Feinstein, the VPC, and the Brady Bunch, since you just conceded that the majority can vote to invalidate your BoR rights.
 
i'm really not qualified or equipped to debate with a fence post, let alone real live people. but i'll give it a try.

Then there's sensop's excellent point about the many and varied things that can make one a felon these days. Having the wrong piece of steel at the end of your rifle will make you a felon in California, for example.
Click to expand...
it seems to me the problem is those laws, not the Bill Or Rights. i believe the Bill of Rights does make provisions for revoking the rights of felons. in the days of our founding fathers, i'm guessing murder, rape and treason were about the only felonies. now, as you said, having the wrong piece of metal at the end of your rifle will make you a felon. don't you think it's those laws that are wrong and not the bill of rights.

If you can set aside one article of the BoR via jury, all of them are fair game. Once they're out of jail, they don't lose their right to worship as they please, nor do they lose the right to not be put in double jeopardy.
Click to expand...

excellent point, and i don't have a good response. i can only say once again, in the days of the founding fathers i'm guessing murder, rape and treason were about the only felonies. i believe, based on the section of the 5th Amendment that i quoted earlier, that the founding fathers saw fit to revoke the rights of those people, not people pee in the bushes outside a bar.
 
i just read my post-
i'm really not qualified or equipped to debate with a fence post
Click to expand...
sorry, i wasn't calling anyone a fence post. i was saying that i'm not qualified to debate anyone or anything because i'm an idiot.
 
You're doing fine Hawken. Sounds better than my response of........................ I have no problem with all felons having all the guns they want as long as they move to MasterPieceArms.com's neighborhood and not mine. I'm not opposed to them petitioning to get their rights restored much like they can do for voting, but to put a blanket statement that it's imoral to deny them gun ownership is imoral and irresponsible.
 
Don-
I might agree with you, except that Rights Restoration is a timely and very costly project.

The points made by Marko and others are spot on. Either the felon should still be in prison or he's "paid his debt". In a time when more and more of us are "guilty" of crimes we don't even know we commit (Read that Drug and Gun Laws), the concept of having full classes of otherwise Free Men denied "inalienable" rights is something that's gonna come back and bite us in our collective butts.

Let's face it, the days are pretty much over when any of us can defiantly claim, "I've nothing to hide." We all do, if only by virtue of the fact that we've no idea what all the laws are anymore....nor what our rights are in an encounter with Law Enforcement.

Rich
 
Are you talking about felons who have served their complete sentences, or are you talking about the 90% of "free" felons who have signed a contract with the State and are serving the sentence on probation, or signed a contract with the State and are serving the remainder of their sentence on parole?

LawDog
 
Ian-
If the question was directed to me, the answer is simple....until you've completed ALL terms of your sentence you're still "paying your debt". You are not a free man before the end of that sentence; you should be once you've completed it.
Rich
 
It was directed at the thread originator, but it's all good. The question becomes, "How many of the 'free felons' referenced by MasterpieceArms are not on parole or probation?"

Just as conversational grounds, I offer this part of Texas law:

§ 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM. (a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.
Click to expand...

According to Texas law, five years after completeing the entirety of his sentence, a felon may possess a firearm at his residence without violating State law.

Federal law may be different, but Federal law is outside my jurisdiction.

Given that G. Gordon Liddy is proud of commenting on his wife's gun collection "some of which stay on my side of the bed", I'd imagine that there may be a similar exemption in Federal law.

LawDog
 
Any legal permanent resident of the country, citizen or resident alien. Should have access to firearms and their use.

someone who served their time for a crime commit, did just that...serve their time..

Pay with time of their life for a crime they committed, people can't really add worth to crimes, but we have a system.

Certain crimes, are punished by certain detentions, or monetary punishments.
Once you pay the debt to society...you should have total rights restored, for you are no longer in debt to society.

Not having total rights as a citizen or atleast a legal resident alien, is in itself punishment, so infact the felon after serving his/her time, is still being punished...which is in my opinion not right.

--

Heres a sidekicker.

And as I stated in my first line...should legal permanent aliens, have the right to carry?

Pay all the same taxes, follow all the same laws, just have citizenship at another country for whatever reason.
 
Interesting subject. I guess part of the problem is that some felonies are simply ridiculous for being classified as such. If a man embezzles seven figures from his company, he's a felon. If a man has a couple pounds of marijuana in his truck, he's a felon. If a man beats an elderly woman senseless and steals her purse, he's a felon. Only one of those crimes, in my opinion, is worthy of the term and is worthy of the loss of certain rights. Rights without responsibility are not a good idea and someone who commits a violent crime shows a gross lack of responsibility.

Then again I happen to believe that violent criminals should stay in jail for far, far longer than they're currently kept in there. A car theif shouldn't be spending five years behind bars where he'll get more pissed off at the world, have little if any income, and learn more tricks of the trade from people who commit more serious crimes if he's able to simply submit a formal apology to the victim and pay the victim back for any and all losses. On the other hand a guy that beats his wife shouldn't see the light of day for....hell, I wouldn't let him out at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top