Loss of 2nd Amendment rights for any arrest?

jimpeel

New member
Right now they are trying to expand the definition of prohibited drug users; but how long before they expand that expansion to include any arrest -- ever -- for anything? The new proposal includes arrests without conviction as a criteria for denial.

Obama's new call to strengthen background checks is going to be used to disallow firearms possession for a greater and greater segment of society.

SOURCE

New gun-control legislation would prohibit those arrested but not convicted of drug crimes from possessing firearms

By Jeff Winkler | Published: 12:39 AM 03/23/2011 | Updated: 1:01 PM 03/23/2011

Get collared years ago on a bogus drug charge because the oregano in your back pocket looked like was a bag of weed? Or maybe a judge back in 2006 dropped those charges because you were able to provide proof for that Adderall prescription? Under proposed legislation, it will not matter if you were innocent all along or even proven innocent by a court of law.

Either way, you can forget about buying a gun.

<MORE>

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/n...rimes-from-possessing-firearms/#ixzz1HUz4HmhF
 
Good old Chuckie. There's no violation of constitutional rights too blatant, no abuse too flagrant as far as he's concerned, as long as it applies to gun owners.

“It’s a concern we’ve raised about this proposal, too. I’ve got the same concerns,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign. “[There is] the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty concept coming into play here. So that alone is a legitimate concern.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/n...ed-of-drug-crimes-from-possessing-firearms/2/

You know Chuckie's topped himself when even the Brady Bunch thinks he's gone too far.
 
Sounds interesting...
I would suspect a sharp rise in arrests for suspicion of possessing drugs...
This would clear whole areas from lawful possession of arms. The real drug dealers are already illegally heavily armed, therefore...

I would tell the authors of this brilliant idea: "Since the number of crimes committed with guns in the hands of people that could be disqualified with this sistem would be a minimal fraction of the DUI casualties, given that, while bearing arms is a cnostitutional right and driving has no such strong protection, it would be only logical that anyone with a drug elated arrest must be banned from driving for ever."

Why not?

K.
 
Perhaps we should suggest lowering the standard down to ever having had a speeding/parking ticket, and include along with disallowing of firearms, the right to govt employment, including elected office?

makes as much sense to me.

Anyone remember the section in the 94 AWB allowing seizure of assets for people suspected of certain crimes? Not even requiring an arrest, let alone a conviction! I believe that section got the axe before the bill was passed, but it was part of the proposed package.

What we have here, is some of the same people, trying yet again to do the same thing to us, still using our safety as their justification.

This is even more disturbing and ridiculous than the Lautenberg Amendment, which removes rights (for ever) for a "domestic violence" misdemeanor conviction, ever, not just following the passage of the law, but ever. This trend in laws being proposed is repugnant! One has absolutely NO CONTROL over being arrested. NONE. You don't have to be breaking any law, or even skirting one. Even trying to explain your side of things to a police officer when they don't want to hear it can get you arrested. It is entirely up to the decision of the officer. Period.

Most of the time, arrests without good basis get tossed. But you still got arrested. Even proposing a law that would deny constitutionally protected rights simply because decades ago a cop had a bad day and you were involved, through no fault or choice of your own? How sad is that?

Why is it these people not only get elected, but get re-elected? That's a sad commentary on the intelligence of their constituents, or their greed and gullibility.
 
The Brady Bunch is blowing smoke. They will be only too happy to see rights taken away upon conviction for any number of lesser offenses. That's what 'innocent until proven guilty' means in their statement.
 
44AMP,

What we have here, is some of the same people, trying yet again to do the same thing to us, still using our safety as their justification.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis
 
The Brady Bunch is blowing smoke. They will be only too happy to see rights taken away upon conviction for any number of lesser offenses. That's what 'innocent until proven guilty' means in their statement.

I'm sure they would. However, what Chuckie is proposing is even a step further; taking away your constitutional rights WITHOUT a conviction.

That's too much even for the Bradys. It would never pass, but if it did it would be a hoot to see the NRA and the ACLU filing a lawsuit together....
 
Hmmmm... the real interesting question is why Sen. Schumer would propose that legislation?

Sen. Schumer headed up the Democratic campaign committee that deliberately pursued the Blue Dog strategy in order to gain control of the House and Senate. That strategy was successful.

Sen. Schumer knows full well that no gun control bill is likely to make it past the House, especially an extreme proposal such as that one. Even if it did survive the house, I don't think there is a lot of Constitutional basis for removing a fundamental right enshrined in the Bill of Rights on the basis of only an arrest. So why did he bother making it?
 
Because he's got a second bill waiting in the wings that will seem much more reasonable by comparison? (simple speculation on my part)
 
It would seem to me that a penalty based on an arrest and not a conviction would be unconstitutional and not get past the SCOTUS challenge.

As to why? Local posturing. Politicians have a list of social issues that appeal to their zealot constituents. Periodically, they put forward something that has no chance of passage to get the true believers to fork up some money.

True of all ends of the political spectrum.
 
Because he's got a second bill waiting in the wings that will seem much more reasonable by comparison? (simple speculation on my part)

I hadn't thought of that but you know, that is very possible. I mean I can't see this current proposal passing even the most anti gun sniff test.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
It would seem to me that a penalty based on an arrest and not a conviction would be unconstitutional and not get past the SCOTUS challenge.
I don't think it would stand up to a SCOTUS challenge, either. The problem is how much trouble it could cause in the few years between passage and SCOTUS opinion.

Kreyzhorse said:
Spats McGee said:
Because he's got a second bill waiting in the wings that will seem much more reasonable by comparison? (simple speculation on my part)
I hadn't thought of that but you know, that is very possible. I mean I can't see this current proposal passing even the most anti gun sniff test.
Like I said, it's rank speculation on my part, but I doubth that he would be either the first, or the last, to try something like that.
 
Any such law would violate the due process protections of the 5th and 14th amendments.

Taking away a fundamental right with zero due process wouldn't survive a challenge.

I do know that Indiana has a law that prevents people from getting a pistol permit, which is required to possess a pistol outside of your home unless transporting it for repairm, if you have been charged with certain crimes and a judge has found probable cause to believe you committed the offense.

I would think such a law would be ripe for a challenge.
 
Unfortunately, we have had a trend over the last fifty years of making punishments more severe for just about anything and on top of that, making more things illegal to begin with. It sometimes seems that even when people get out of prison, their punishment isn't over. They are forever on some list or still have to be doing something. It is just part of the conservative leaning of the law since the 1970s. So I suppose it is a natural extension of that to have punishments, in a manner of speaking, for simple arrests even without convictions or even being charged. It happens all the time in one way or another.

So be careful what you wish for.
 
In some states you get a ticket for sall amounts of drugs not arrested. Iowa arrests you for simple contraband. Huge disgreppancy there. So first all the states need to have the same laws or it just wont work. Then the innocent till found guilty leaves no room for this type of law.

More internet rubbish or more wishful thinking by the scared folks.
 
The actual bill is S. 436, authored by Charles Schumer (surprise!) and cosponsored only by Kirsten Gillebrand and John Kerry.

I expect Coburn and Grassley to tear it apart like hyenas on Red Bull when it lands in the Judiciary Committee.

To put it lightly, I'm not the least bit worried about this gaining traction.
 
Back
Top