Felons Should Have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Drug traffickers. Human traffickers. Murderers. Rapists. Pedophiles.

They should all be hung, so I am naturally not including those felons.

But if someone kills a bald eagle, has slightly too much Cannabis in their possession, or does any crime, that doesnt earn them the death penalty, and they pay their debt to society, they should maintain their right to purchase firearms.

 

It is possible in some states to have your criminal record expunged and civil rights restored.

 

I would agree that, if you've served your time and your crime didn't involve a gun or violence in general, then yes, you should be able to have a gun.

 

Thats not my argument, so you dont agree.

 

Ok, well, recidivism among violent offenders is pretty high. If someone has committed a violent crime, then why would you want them to have a gun later on -- especially if they used a gun in the crime?

 

According to the line of reasoning advanced by gun lovers (of the People), even criminals of the People, insurrectionists of the People, rebels of the People and terrorists of the People have a "right" to not be Infringed allegedly found in our own Second Article of Amendment.

 

According to the line of reasoning advanced by gun lovers, yes they should because they have an alleged right to not be Infringed, allegedly arising from our Second Amendment.

 

All felonies are not the same. If you commit a violent crime using a gun I think a logical condition of your release should be that you possess no guns. For most other felonies I don't see why it would matter.

 

What part of "shall not be Infringed" is inconsistent with gun lovers' line of reasoning?

 

If a person 'pays their debt to society'... whatever that is... then why shouldn't they be allowed to possess firearms? If a debt has been paid then the slate is clean, right? Or does that work like a credit rating and it has to be built up again before good credit is established.

Firearms are tools and a necessity when living in rural areas. Most people opposed to widespread firearm ownership are in favor of totalitarianism... progressives, socialists, communists, Marxists, fascists, Nazis.

 

The reason fellons should not own guns is because they infringed the rights of others ( I am talking violent felons) by hurting people in some way . Although people who commit non-violent felonies should be allowed their rights back . I think if you got a felony for having weed from a long time ago, you should be able to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights again, get a job, and be able to vote.

 

In other words, you believe our Second Amendment is not literal, but for well regulated militias of Individual People, who may keep and bear Arms.

 

No I do believe the 2nd amendment is a individual right, but in extreme cases such as rapists and murderers the right can be suspended .

 

I'd say there is a correlation between all forms of immoral or anti-social behavior in general (even 'non-violent' ones), so I have mixed feelings on the issue - I don't feel that 'non-violent felons' are necessarily a danger to my life, but I don't feel that they're 'entitled' to own a gun either

 

Are their rights infringed upon? I'm just playing devil's advocate.

A felony is a crime against the state, not an individual. The state uses its monopoly over the use of force to bring that person to justice using an adversarial court that assumes they are innocent. Their right to liberty is taken away only after an exhaustive debate. The state prosecutes because the crime is against them.

 

I disagree.. no convicted felon should have gun rights or voting rights.

 

If a convicted felon is a danger to others, don't let him out of prison. If he's not a danger to others he shouldn't be incarcerated or restricted from owning or bearing arms.

 

So you'd advocate life in prison for writing 1 bad check at age 18? Um... okay

 

You do realize that a drug dealer is as likely to use guns in furtherance of their crimes as anybody else?

 

Not unless the bad check writer is a danger to others for the rest of his life.

Rather more likely, I would advocate the bad check writing 18 year old be sentenced to making full restitution plus damages with no jail time.

 

How could it be that? The 2nd amendment clearly enumerates private persons have the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry). That does not give everyone carte blanche right to either keep any kind of weapon available or take it any place he wishes. There are limitations as prescribed by law and upheld in par (2) of DC v Heller. Observe all ye who question the validity of the 2nd amendment.

The Supreme Court held:

Paragraph (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Paragraph (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Last Paragraph “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certan policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”​

Contrary to the understanding and desires to the contrary the court specifically states that the operative clause of the 2nd amendment is the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

 

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states

The Washington DC V Heller only pertained to Federal Enclaves. But McDonald v. Chicago expanded that holding to all cities and all states. I think it is time to put this BS about the 2nd amendment to rest. Either accept it or garner the votes to repeal it or rewrite it.

 

I disagree, the Amendment says "Shall Not Be Infringed." Look that up.......... ANY law written on the 2ND is a violation of the 2ND. IF the founders didn't want felons & mentally ill, who were in society at the writing, they could have made an exclusion. They didn't. And it is the only Amendment that has that clause, when all of them could have.

My "guess" would be (IMO), that the founders understood that each American had a right to defend themselves and others, regardless of any mark on their character. I feel a man has a right regardless of his status to defend himself and his family, and others.

 

I presume that the Supreme Court took the definition to be somewhat more than regulated such that some regulation could apply within the definition of the word infringement. IOW, does infringement mean ABSOLUTELY NO REGULATION, OR COULD SOME REGULATION BE ACCEPTABLE. I suspect the Supreme court thought the latter.

 

In other words, that "right" is Infringable, but only for civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service.