The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The standard should be that they can't ban *anyone* except individually during the sentencing phase after a conviction.
Should have to be specifically in the sentence "2 years in prison and no guns for 10 after that" or something.
And should be subject to the "cruel and unusual" prohibition as part of a sentence for anything non violent.
Should have to be specifically in the sentence "2 years in prison and no guns for 10 after that" or something.
And should be subject to the "cruel and unusual" prohibition as part of a sentence for anything non violent.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
if you are out of Jail .. you can be trusted ... then you have all your Rights ..
hell when you are in Jail you still have your 1st and and a few others
can't do that .. no such thing in 1791
back then you were hung or shot if your really really bad person ..
no guns for blacks , and other races ... laws are null n void to use for the Govt .. didn't have them back in day
The 2A says the People ..
it does not say only the People that are not felons or a special class can not have guns .
hell when you are in Jail you still have your 1st and and a few others
can't do that .. no such thing in 1791
back then you were hung or shot if your really really bad person ..
no guns for blacks , and other races ... laws are null n void to use for the Govt .. didn't have them back in day
The 2A says the People ..
it does not say only the People that are not felons or a special class can not have guns .
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Conviction after a trial can strip any rights you are sentenced to lose. Up and including the right to live.
If you can be sentenced to die, be locked in a cage for 10 years, be forbidden from living in certain areas, be stripped of property, etc... then gun rights are just one more on the list.
People are regularly stripped of 1A rights after conviction. But it has to be done specifically as part of the sentence for that crime.
4th and 5th ammendment are gone for a time (parole, you can be searched anytime, for any reason basically. Refuse to answer questions ?
parole revoked, etc...).
The basic mechanism is "we're going to send you to prison for 10 years, but if you agree to these limits we'll let you out in 2". If they can tell you no social media they can tell you no guns.
But, the limit is that it *must* be part of the specific sentence you are handed after a due process conviction.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Precisely. People agree to forfeit rights all the time in exchange for laughter sentencing or reduced jail time.
I worked with a guy years ago that had 5 DWIs. Lost his license and agreed to 5 years probation, no alcohol consumption at all, in exchange for no jail time.. Wasn't even allowed to have mouthwash. His probation officer had a hard on for him, stopped to his house un-announced at 11pm on a Friday night at 4 years 10 months and did a breathalyzer. Blew a .08 and went to jail for 6 months.
RedBreast21
.223 Rem
My problem with laws that strip away a person rights can vary from state to state. That is not how it should be. Laws that ban an individual right need to be for the most violent of crimes only. Other than that, once time is served you are made whole.
ManualF150
.308 Win
Been saying this over and over... in NYS you are a felon if you don't have the permission slip for a hand gun. Because of that, you are now banned in all 50 states from owning a gun.
It is blatantly unconstitutional.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
"The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns "
Be careful, the decision did no such thing.
Actually the decision specifically stated that the plaintiff Range is to have his 2A rights back, but that the case does not set a precedent in which all other similar cases are presumed to be automatically adjudicated in favor of a similar plaintiff.
What the decision DID do is manifold;
- It faithfully adhered to Heller, MacDonald and Bruen, which not all courts have done since Bruen (such as the 2nd rubber stamping the stay over-riding Sinatra and Suddaby)
- It established that a 'prohibited person' has an avenue of appeal (the courts, based on this precedent) to have 2A rights restored,
- That much of the 'history and tradition' that states have used to justify gun laws since Bruen are illegitimate due to being racist,
- And it gave a solid example of how a district court of appeals must use the Bruen test to adjudicate 2A cases. - (courts must be in favor of the 'people' and 2A unless solid, valid 'history and tradition' solidly demonstrates otherwise).
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
States are allowed to be more restrictive than Federal law, but not less. Example... Feds pass a law saying no mags over 30 rounds. States can pass a law saying 20, but can't pass a law saying 40.
States should have some autonomy in being able to govern themselves, but the BOR should be plain as day and apply across the board. Sadly thats not the case currently from state to state.
US RIFLE M1A
.45 acp
Not really. The Supremacy Clause states:
1) That a Federal law can be stricter than a state law even if the state objects to the level of strictness.
2) That a State law cannot be stricter than Federal law if the feds object to the level of strictness.
3) If a state and federal law are not aligned, the stricter law prevails unless #2 above.
Example 1) The Clinton federal AWB took precedent and semi autos with certain features were prohibited even though some (Red) states hated it.
2) FOPA (interstate travel with gun in the trunk) takes precedent over state gun laws even though some (Blue) states hate it.
Although the state legalization of Marijuana, and many states facilitating its growth and distribution, does sorta kinda fly in the face of the Supremacy Clause, because marijuana is still illegal under fed law.
In your example, a state which does not want to have a mag cap limit need only remain silent on the issue or set a mag cap at 40 or 50 or whatever, but the federal law will be the law that needs to be obeyed. If the state goes to 10 or 20, that becomes the law that needs to be obeyed. If a federal law is passed which says that ALL mags MUST be 30 rounds or larger, the state cannot do anything about it.
Last edited:
Deplorable Me
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Was Hunter Biden's ass just covered?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Serving time *is* stripping rights.
*any* penalty for a criminal action is stripping some rights from the convicted.
So, either we have uniform nationwide criminal statutes, or every state does things differently.
Personally I think incarceration is a very bad way to impose criminal penalties in most cases. Even corporal punishment was better for most.
But, we have defaulted to incarceration because it's the most palatable for the squeamish masses. They'd much rather throw criminals in a hole and forget about them than actually deal with a real punishment.
Incarceration should be reserved for people who truly cannot be allowed to participate in society. Everyone else should be punished some other way.
But *all* forms of criminal punishment involve stripping some rights from the criminal.
Ex criminals should be allowed to own firearms. Absolutely, yes