Felons that lawfully carry

[Freedom1Man]

Prison should be a temporary thing. The only 'life' sentence should be the death sentence.

The only reason we should suspend the death sentence even is because the courts are corrupt.

Once you're released from jail parole or free, you're no longer in police custody and so are responsible for defending yourself.

 

[carolina guy]

No cite is necessary. I am stating an opinion on what the law means, not what it says. I assume that we all already know that the Constitution says that we may not be deprived of life, Liberty, or property without due process of law. If you don't, say so and I will provide both a citation and a quote.

I already asked, and you have failed to answer, where the Constitution provides the ability to deprive someone of a RIGHT after they have served their time. You have not answered with anything more than effectively, "it doesn't because I said so, nya nya nya". You will notice that until 1968, there wasn't even the concept of the Federal Government trying to restrict someone's right to self defense based upon a conviction. Almost 200 years and nothing...and then we have a LAW...nothing noted to related it to the Constitution.

Anyway, I will just accept that you are full of hot air on this issue and go on.

 

[eye95]

It will be interesting to see if eye will ever actually answer, or just keep side stepping and denigrating. Wonder what other "liberties" he feels that convicted (and released) criminals should give up.

That is a question to be decided by the People, usually through their elected legislatures. The Liberties forfeit for conviction of a crime are laid out in law. Some are fixed, some are flexible, and some can be changed while in progress.

Again, my whole point is that this is a policy issue to be settled by the People of each State. Personally I think that all the State laws I know of on the matter go to far and should be fixed, but fighting it as a rights issue is a loser. Fight the battle in a way you can win: Work to change the law.

 

[eye95]

I already asked, and you have failed to answer, where the Constitution provides the ability to deprive someone of a RIGHT after they have served their time. You have not answered with anything more than effectively, "it doesn't because I said so, nya nya nya". You will notice that until 1968, there wasn't even the concept of the Federal Government trying to restrict someone's right to self defense based upon a conviction. Almost 200 years and nothing...and then we have a LAW...nothing noted to related it to the Constitution.

Anyway, I will just accept that you are full of hot air on this issue and go on.

And I have repeatedly said, again and again, over and over, etc, etc, that the Constitution allows for the forfeiture of rights following due process. That one portion of the penalty runs for one length of time and another for a different length of time is irrelevant to the constitutionality of assessing each penalty. That you do not agree with the answer (or that you do not like the answer) does not mean that it has not been given repeatedly, again and again, over and over, etc, etc.

On edit: Who cares whether you think my opinion is full of hot air? Not me. You see, something else that I have repeatedly said, again and again, over and over, etc, etc, is that, when I am in these debates, I could care less whether I convince the posters with whom I am corresponding. It is the casual reader, who chooses not to post, whom I am trying to reach. I receive ample feedback that I reach quite a number of them by addressing the reasonable arguments with reasonable arguments.

I would like to point out that, in this case, I hope to cause a slight adjustment in the opinion of the poster who, for some strange reason, does not defend #3. I have come to respect him as a poster.

 

[marshaul]

It will be interesting to see if eye will ever actually answer, or just keep side stepping and denigrating. Wonder what other "liberties" he feels that convicted (and released) criminals should give up.

The worst part is eye has made it clear he's totally OK with state governments making felonies out of a whole host of non-crime activities, so long as a majority desires it and it isn't Federal.

He likes to sidestep and repeat what amounts to court precedent-turned-universal-fact (his usual source of Truth), and he'll make vague claims that things have "gone too far", but then immediately return to defending the status quo. And his defense of the status quo consists of nothing more than repeating it, as though we didn't know.

But none of this actually changes the simple conclusion that, when we let folks like eye95 have their way, the "majority" (in fact elite "representatives" claiming the mandate of a putative majority) can get together and declare felonies of any trivial behavior they want, give a whole host of people they don't like short sentences for these trivial felonies, and promptly release their victims at the end of the short sentence, deprived of any rights they please.

No guns? You're dangerous! No voting? You don't deserve it! Self-defense? Right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? Freedom of association? Freedom of speech? You can't be trusted! All of the above is OK because there's been "due process".

Now, I could talk until I'm blue in the face about what reforms I would make, but I won't. I just want folks to consider the above. I truly think that the arguments against eye95's position make themselves.

eye95 really has nothing to offer liberty-minded folks in this area, except perhaps as an example of what we oppose.

 

[SavageOne]

And I have repeatedly said, again and again, over and over, etc, etc, that the Constitution allows for the forfeiture of rights following due process. That one portion of the penalty runs for one length of time and another for a different length of time is irrelevant to the constitutionality of assessing each penalty. That you do not agree with the answer (or that you do not like the answer) does not mean that it has not been given repeatedly, again and again, over and over, etc, etc.

On edit: Who cares whether you think my opinion is full of hot air? Not me. You see, something else that I have repeatedly said, again and again, over and over, etc, etc, is that, when I am in these debates, I could care less whether I convince the posters with whom I am corresponding. It is the casual reader, who chooses not to post, whom I am trying to reach. I receive ample feedback that I reach quite a number of them by addressing the reasonable arguments with reasonable arguments.

I would like to point out that, in this case, I hope to cause a slight adjustment in the opinion of the poster who, for some strange reason, does not defend #3. I have come to respect him as a poster.

You continue to say that the Constitution allows for the forfeiture of rights after due process, but when pressed as to why that was not done prior to 1968, you say that is irrelevant, because you were talking about the States constitutions. Which is it? As I have pointed out the GCA does prohibit possession of a firearm by a felon, and is when that prohibition was made federal law. Could you please give an answer to why if it has always been Constitutional to restrict the rights of felons, it wasn't until 1968 that the Federal Government started doing it. Before you start again about States laws, please realize most of this State laws came into effect after the GCA, to bring the States more in line with the Fed.

 

[eye95]

You juxtapose different points I have made in an attempt to create inconsistency where there is none.

Point. The Constitution does not disallow the forfeiture of Rights after due process. End of that point.

New point. Unless a State's constitution prohibits such a forfeiture, it is entirely within the purview of the People, usually through their elected legislatures, to determine which Rights are forfeit, for how long, and any discretion as to lengths of time. End of new point.

I notice you have gentlerified your "no laws before 1968" stance into one that recognizes that such laws did predate 1968.

Except for federal crimes tried in federal courts, the feds have zero business saying that all felons may not purchase firearms. That is a State matter. Within the States, it is a matter of public policy, not prohibited by the Constitution, nor by any State constitution that I know of (feel free to point one out if one exists), to determine forfeitures for crimes after due process.

My whole point all along has been that the original premise of the thread that the RKBA cannot be taken away because it is constitutionally protected is false. Constitutional rights, God-given rights, natural rights, are all, independently or collectively, for varying lengths of time--including permanently, subject to forfeiture after due process. Stop fighting this as a rights issue. It is a loser. Fight it as a public policy issue. You might actually win that battle, if in fact winning the battle is your goal.

Everyone here needs to look into their souls and decide if they are Liberty advocates or Liberty-advocacy pimps. Do you want to solve the problem, or do you want to deal with the problem in a way that keeps it around, giving you a raison-d'etre? Make sure that your behaviors and intents aren't similar to those of poverty pimps and race pimps. Go for solving the problem, not living off of it.

 

[SavageOne]

If you will look at my first post in this discussion (post 26) you will see that I plainly acknowledged local laws prior to 1968. That is to say local municipal laws, I am aware of no State statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms prior to 1968. You have voiced your interpretation of forfeiture after due process, but still have failed to point out why it was not done prior to 1968 at the State or the Federal level. If it has always been Constitutional( both State and Federal) why wasn't it done? Where's the precedent?

In an effort to get an answer to the question you have been dancing around I, for the sake of argument, will agree that it perfectly Constitutional through due process to allow the forfeiture of rights. Now, please answer why they didn't do this( at a State or Federal level) prior to 1968?

 

[carolina guy]

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. It beats the hell outta some of the drivel in this thread.

You are narrowly construing the word "Liberty." I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that your understanding is that incarceration is the forfeiture of Liberty. Liberty is broader than that and includes all that we say and do--including the exercise of God-given and/or enumerated rights--not just the freedom to move about at will.

Therefore, the RKBA is one of the Liberties that can be forfeit after due process has determined that one is a criminal.

Let me give your reply a qualified +1

There sure is some drivel on this thread...

It should be interesting to know what other Federal "Liberties" you think are open for forfeiture and exactly, how those forfeitures are actually Constitutional for a State to take in the first place.

Just because some states do it now doesn't make it right or Constitutional. But, let's take my state's Constitution (North Carolina) -- perhaps you could find anywhere that it "allows" the forfeiture of Federal Constitutional Rights as a punishment of a crime. I looked, and I don't see it.

The absolute closest that I can see and find would be the "restoration of citizenship" of a convicted felon. However, this can only apply to State Citizenship since the only a few methods for a person to lose Federal Citizenship:

1) Voluntary Renunciation
2) Treason against the US
3) Lying during Naturalization

So, I ask you...again...if someone can only lose a "State Citizenship" for a felony, but cannot lose a Federal Citizenship for the same (because that is and would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL), and if the 2nd Amendment applies to the States by way of the 14th Amendment, how can someone lose the RTKBA? If someone was convicted in NC for a felony, was released and moved to SC, they should have FULL rights. Further, if you remain in NC (or any other state) you are still a US Citizen.

If you think this is a "losing battle", then I think you need to reconsider your views of Liberty. If you support (or will stand by and watch) as people are deprived of their rights, you are just as guilty as those to take them.

Also, as an aside, from the NC Constitution, and most other states are similar:

Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.
We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

Sec. 3. Internal government of the State.
The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.

Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.
Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.

Sec. 19. Law of the land; equal protection of the laws.
No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Last time I checked, wasn't the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land??

Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

 

[eye95]

...Prior to 1968 there were a few local statues that did this, but nothing on the national level...

...most of this State laws came into effect after the GCA...

...I am aware of no State statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms prior to 1968...

You are being inconsistent as to your claims about the existence of laws. The only one that would matter to your argument would only be the State laws, as that is all I am discussing. I have already stated that the feds have no business in assessing penalties for folks convicted in State courts. I am ignoring local laws because it is only necessary to discuss State laws to make my point.

So, since it is critical to your point (which will fail anyway, because even if it was never done, that does not mean it wasn't constitutional; not everything that is not done is unconstitutional), I suggest that you research your contention, and support any claim to some, all, or none of the States having laws restricting carry by felons prior to 1968. Make a firm and supported statement, and I will address it.

However, I gotta tell you that the absence of laws does not mean that they would have been unconstitutional.

I'll wait.

 

[eye95]

Let me give your reply a qualified +1

There sure is some drivel on this thread...

It should be interesting to know what other "Liberties" you think are open for forfeiture and exactly, how those forfeitures are actually Constitutional for a State to take in the first place. Just because some states do it now doesn't make it right or Constitutional. But, let's take my state's Constitution (North Carolina) -- perhaps you could find anywhere that it "allows" the forfeiture of Federal Constitutional Rights as a punishment of a crime. I looked, and I don't see it.

The absolute closest that I can see and find would be the "restoration of citizenship" of a convicted felon. However, this can only apply to State Citizenship since the only a few methods for a person to lose Federal Citizenship:

1) Voluntary Renunciation
2) Treason against the US
3) Lying during Naturalization

So, I ask you...again...if someone can only lose a "State Citizenship" for a felony, but cannot lose a Federal Citizenship for the same (because that is and would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL), and if the 2nd Amendment applies to the States by way of the 14th Amendment, how can someone lose the RTKBA? If someone was convicted in NC for a felony, was released and moved to SC, they should have FULL rights. Further, if you remain in NC (or any other state) you are still a US Citizen.

If you think this is a "losing battle", then I think you need to reconsider your views of Liberty. If you support (or will stand by and watch) as people are deprived of their rights, you are just as guilty as those to take them.

I have no idea how "citizenship" got into this. The discussion is the forfeiture of the RKBA.

My point is simple. I will restate it. Rights are routinely forfeit as a result of conviction for crimes following due process. Those rights are forfeit for varying lengths of time, up to and including permanently. No one has yet stated a constitutional (US) reason why the RKBA cannot be forfeit for whatever length of time State law allows as long as due process is followed.

Again, that you do not like it does not make it unconstitutional.

Again, if you want to change public policy in this matter (I do; I just have bigger fish to fry), change the laws. Trying to get the practice declared unconstitutional is a loser. Ain't gonna happen. I really am beginning to wonder if some folks would rather keep fighting battles as opposed to winning the war.

 

[carolina guy]

I have no idea how "citizenship" got into this. The discussion is the forfeiture of the RKBA.

My point is simple. I will restate it. Rights are routinely forfeit as a result of conviction for crimes following due process. Those rights are forfeit for varying lengths of time, up to and including permanently. No one has yet stated a constitutional (US) reason why the RKBA cannot be forfeit for whatever length of time State law allows as long as due process is followed.

Again, that you do not like it does not make it unconstitutional.

Again, if you want to change public policy in this matter (I do; I just have bigger fish to fry), change the laws. Trying to get the practice declared unconstitutional is a loser. Ain't gonna happen. I really am beginning to wonder if some folks would rather keep fighting battles as opposed to winning the war.

Your evasion is simple, but your point is not.

And again, I have asked you, and you have failed to reply as to what other rights are forfeit as a result of a felony conviction. You have yet to name a single one of the rights enumerated in the US Constitution that are forfeit OTHER than the RTKBA.

If I like it or not is meaningless...something is either Constitutional or it is not. And I (as well as a number of other people) have stated that the denial of the RTKBA for a felony is a recent thing in US history and smacks of injustice and Unconstitutional. This is like the forced internment of Japanese Americans during WWII...people supported it, the courts supported it...but it was wrong.

So...please answer ANY of the questions posed to you.

BTW: "Citizenship" is the method that the States have used to deny voting rights and RTKBA from felons. Please read a bit more...

Oh...as a last edit...the "war" isn't just for the RTKBA...the war is to keep ALL rights...but if you get a statist in the mix, they are willing to concede the entire point of Freedom to win a few privileges.

 

[marshaul]

My whole point all along has been that the original premise of the thread that the RKBA cannot be taken away because it is constitutionally protected is false. Constitutional rights, God-given rights, natural rights, are all, independently or collectively, for varying lengths of time--including permanently, subject to forfeiture after due process. Stop fighting this as a rights issue. It is a loser. Fight it as a public policy issue. You might actually win that battle, if in fact winning the battle is your goal.

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."

 

[eye95]

The RKBA during ALL incarcerations, regardless of level. The right of association. To some extent, the right to free speech. The right to be secure in ones papers and effects. (Just the ones that come to mind.) Plus a raft of other rights that were so fundamental as to not be enumerated.

 

[carolina guy]

The RKBA during ALL incarcerations, regardless of level. The right of association. To some extent, the right to free speech. The right to be secure in ones papers and effects. (Just the ones that come to mind.) Plus a raft of other rights that were so fundamental as to not be enumerated.

Ok. Please let me be COMPLETELY CLEAR:

We are talking about felons who are NO LONGER IN PRISON and are NOT on parole. These are fully released people...they are FREE upon the streets to pursue life.

Felons who are in prison (IMO) have too many rights currently. Felons who have been released EARLY and are on PAROLE should still be subject to many (if not all) of the restrictions they had while incarcerated.

 

[eye95]

It is your premise that they "are fully released." It is my contention that they are still experiencing consequences. There is no constitutional requirement that all forfeitures run perfectly concurrently.

 

[carolina guy]

It is your premise that they "are fully released." It is my contention that they are still experiencing consequences. There is no constitutional requirement that all forfeitures run perfectly concurrently.

(*SHRUG*) Another non-answer. :banghead: A word is starting to come to mind here...and it rhymes with "roll".

Time to let you argue with yourself...may the best man win!

 

[carolina guy]

It is your premise that they "are fully released." It is my contention that they are still experiencing consequences. There is no constitutional requirement that all forfeitures run perfectly concurrently.

I know you are incapable of answering this, but I will ask the one last question of you on this topic:

Where is the authorization for a State to remove a Federal Right? Just name it for one state...I already gave you a link to NC's Constitution...please find it.

 

[eye95]

(*SHRUG*) Another non-answer. :banghead: A word is starting to come to mind here...and it rhymes with "roll".

Time to let you argue with yourself...may the best man win!

If you meant "troll," your post here is the trollish one. I was posting on topic. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean it isn't one.

It's OK, I've made my point, I can move on to conversations with folks interested in honest back-and-forth.

 

[eye95]

I know you are incapable of answering this, but I will ask the one last question of you on this topic:

Where is the authorization for a State to remove a Federal Right? Just name it for one state...I already gave you a link to NC's Constitution...please find it.

You clearly stated an intent to move on. If you wish to reengage in adult debate, please do so in an adult manner, and I will respond likewise. Otherwise, I'm OK with moving on.