Gun ownership is a right

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by Bridget

1. What's a 'murderer' doing out of prison? That suggests a small crime (not as bad as you wish to suggest) or successful rehabilitation. So, what's the big deal if they obtain a firearm for personal protection?
2. Isn't he still entitled to the same right of self-defense as everyone else? Last time I checked, your rights as a human being don't diminish no matter what type of human being you may be.
3. Criminals will obtain guns no matter the law. Therefore, isn't it better for them to obtain them legally as to provide information to law enforcement in the rare case that such a person were to commit another crime?

I kind of agree. We have a huge/dangerous problem here in America where: once someone does their time, they SERVED THEIR SENTENCE. But we as a general society cannot let it go. It's pretty gawl-damn fascist in fact. However sometimes you can let people out of custody and they are still under rehabilitation. Part of their release agreement may have restrictions. Even someone who premeditates murder can get paroled. So it should be case by case versus the general nature of gun bans now. And some of the stuff that gets you a felony conviction is BULLSHIT. Make that MOST of the stuff. Restrictions go right back to the "right" vs "privileged" debate. Something else that's a dangerous problem here, that distinction.

The supreme court has stated regional governments cannot ban ownership in the home. That does not mean they cannot ban right to carry to subset of individuals. But yeah man, once you do the time and you are out we are way to harsh on these people. Now if this is your 4th or 5th armed robbery and 3rd illegal possession charge, then fuck you. It would be negligent for a government to let you walk around legally packing a firearm.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Iggy, the only way a person's Rights should ever be removed or limited is at the hand of a jury of their peers. It should never be by administrative or legislative action. I've stated my view of Rights for those who've been stripped of them via due process earlier ITT. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough?

Child Molesters? Really Iggy? Was that necessary? This seems clear enough without muddying it with parallels or analogies...

I would agree, however there is a "just cause" to remove someones rights. Someone who has proven(especially repeatedly) that they aren't trustworthy with a firearm, should not be allowed to own one, period. While I do agree with the "debt to society" part, they can be freed to get a job, own a home, etc.... they just can't be trusted with a gun. Of course, if we actually USED capital punishment, the issue would take care of itself.

Oh, and I thought the analogy was perfect. Let me ask you this, would you allow a murderer who has "paid his debt to society" to be on the police force?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Iggy

I would agree, however there is a "just cause" to remove someones rights. Someone who has proven(especially repeatedly) that they aren't trustworthy with a firearm, should not be allowed to own one, period. While I do agree with the "debt to society" part, they can be freed to get a job, own a home, etc.... they just can't be trusted with a gun. Of course, if we actually USED capital punishment, the issue would take care of itself.

Oh, and I thought the analogy was perfect. Let me ask you this, would you allow a murderer who has "paid his debt to society" to be on the police force?

As I stated before I believe that only a jury has the authority to limit or revoke rights.

I'm sure you liked your analogy. I'm just saying that I don't think it was needed. We both seem to grasp this idea well enough.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

I kind of agree. We have a huge/dangerous problem here in America where: once someone does their time, they SERVED THEIR SENTENCE. But we as a general society cannot let it go. It's pretty gawl-damn fascist in fact. However sometimes you can let people out of custody and they are still under rehabilitation. Part of their release agreement may have restrictions. Even someone who premeditates murder can get paroled. So it should be case by case versus the general nature of gun bans now. And some of the stuff that gets you a felony conviction is BULLSHIT. Make that MOST of the stuff. Restrictions go right back to the "right" vs "privileged" debate. Something else that's a dangerous problem here, that distinction.

The supreme court has stated regional governments cannot ban ownership in the home. That does not mean they cannot ban right to carry to subset of individuals. But yeah man, once you do the time and you are out we are way to harsh on these people. Now if this is your 4th or 5th armed robbery and 3rd illegal possession charge, then fuck you. It would be negligent for a government to let you walk around legally packing a firearm.

This seems like a straw man to me. 4 or 5 AND still legally carrying? That seems unlikely at the least.... In any case 4 or 5 occurrences fairly well guarantees a trial by jury in there somewhere.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Innoc

As I stated before I believe that only a jury has the authority to limit or revoke rights.

But it's up to the presiding judge to dictate the actual sentence. As it stands, a felon has lost the right to ever cast a vote. When they committed the crime, they forfeited the rights a civilized person is entitled to. If they can lose the right to vote, why not the right to carry a firearm?

[Bridget]

We sure showed them! Now they can't vote! Ha ha ha~

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Iggy

But it's up to the presiding judge to dictate the actual sentence. As it stands, a felon has lost the right to ever cast a vote. When they committed the crime, they forfeited the rights a civilized person is entitled to. If they can lose the right to vote, why not the right to carry a firearm?

AFAIK Felony conviction automatically causes the revocation of 2nd Amendment Rights automatically in all cases regardless of the reason for the conviction. Sentencing is something that happens AFTER a Jury has rendered it's verdict. I believe that Restoration of Civil Rights is something that most States (if not all) offer once certain conditions are met.

[Credge]

Militias are important.

Citizens with guns are important.

Second ammendment.

Edit: Rights can only exist when they do not impact others. For example, it is not your right to get food stamps. It is your right to own a weapon. You owning a weapon does not steal money, property, or other rights from another person.

When you violate somebody elses rights (the point of a felony), you lose rights.

I dunno. This thing seems pretty simple to me.

[mervaka]

isn't the constitution outdated? i mean, we don't run around shooting people anymore.. oh wait.

[Bridget]

Look out, British people talking about US constitution. Grab your guns.

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by Innoc

This seems like a straw man to me. 4 or 5 AND still legally carrying? That seems unlikely at the least.... In any case 4 or 5 occurrences fairly well guarantees a trial by jury in there somewhere.

lol. Would 2 be better?

revocation of 2nd Amendment Rights automatically in all cases regardless of the reason for the conviction

You fuck up and steal something like a TV and you should lose your constitutional right after serving out sentence. That's not what it's about. We started doing that last century as a paranoid schizophrenic society

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

You fuck up and steal something like a TV and you should lose your constitutional right after serving out sentence. That's not what it's about. We started doing that last century as a paranoid schizophrenic society

More than likely a misdemeanor. Try again.

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by Etzell

More than likely a misdemeanor. Try again.

Try again? lol.

I own a couple of TVs both over 500 bucks. Anything over 500 bucks in my state is a FELONY. Commonly refereed to as grand larceny charge. Some states it's as low as 200 dollars. You can also be charged for embezzlement if you happen to work at the TV store. Which can also be a felony conviction if prosecuted even if the dollar amount is lower than the grand larceny limit.

Yeah it's bullshit. You steal a $400 TV, misdemeanor. $600 TV, Felony. Or say a couple pairs of 150.00 dollar shoes in states where $200 is a Felony conviction. Some states have leeway, most it's a mandatory charge/process.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

lol. Would 2 be better?



You fuck up and steal something like a TV and you should lose your constitutional right after serving out sentence. That's not what it's about. We started doing that last century as a paranoid schizophrenic society

I was merely commenting that by the time someone's gone through the revolving door of "Justice" you'd likely have a jury trial at some point that would have stripped you of your 2nd Amendment rights.

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by stray kitten

Try again? lol.

I own a couple of TVs both over 500 bucks. Anything over 500 bucks in my state is a FELONY. Commonly refereed to as grand larceny charge. Some states it's as low as 200 dollars. You can also be charged for embezzlement if you happen to work at the TV store. Which can also be a felony conviction if prosecuted even if the dollar amount is lower than the grand larceny limit.

Yeah it's bullshit. You steal a $400 TV, misdemeanor. $600 TV, Felony. Or say a couple pairs of 150.00 dollar shoes in states where $200 is a Felony conviction. Some states have leeway, most it's a mandatory charge/process.

Most states also have ARE where the first offense of these crimes can be waived from your record with no jail time and community service. So really you aren't talking about a guy stealing two pairs of shoes. You're talking about repeat offenders since he would be stupid not to plead out that first offense. So, multiple high value thefts. I think causing that kind of consistent repetitive frustration deserves some kind of probation against firearms. Perhaps not permanent, but certainly there should be a time period where this hypothetical criminal isn't allowed to purchase a weapon that can make it very easy to rob higher dollar amounts.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Perhaps not permanent, but certainly there should be a time period where this hypothetical criminal isn't allowed to purchase a weapon that can make it very easy to rob higher dollar amounts.

Or injure or kill those they would rob.

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Most states also have ARE where the first offense of these crimes can be waived from your record with no jail time and community service. So really you aren't talking about a guy stealing two pairs of shoes. You're talking about repeat offenders since he would be stupid not to plead out that first offense. So, multiple high value thefts. I think causing that kind of consistent repetitive frustration deserves some kind of probation against firearms. Perhaps not permanent, but certainly there should be a time period where this hypothetical criminal isn't allowed to purchase a weapon that can make it very easy to rob higher dollar amounts.

I am not saying there isn't leeway there but given the right state, prosecutor, jury and judge you can get a felony conviction for stealing a tv.

And I agree on repeat offenders as references in my other post. You fuck up a couple time, do the time I am good. You keep going then fuck you.