does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules?

This is a discussion on does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Wow I so disagree that a Felon shouldnt have a gun yet 91 of you think they shouldn't. Have any of you placed any thought ...

View Poll Results: Are the limits to the 2nd Amendment Constitutional?

Voters
156. You may not vote on this poll
  • I agree that a person under 18 should not own a long gun!

    32 20.51%
  • I disagree that a person under 18 can't own a long gun!

    79 50.64%
  • I agree that a person under 21 should not own a handgun!

    27 17.31%
  • I disagree that a person under 21 can't own a handgun!

    89 57.05%
  • I agree some weapons should be restricted from American citizens!

    36 23.08%
  • I disagree some weapons should be restricted from American citizens!

    84 53.85%
  • I agree that a felon should not be able to own a gun!

    108 69.23%
  • I think this is a stupid poll

    27 17.31%
  • I think this is a good poll

    54 34.62%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 79
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules?

  1. #61
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,334
    Wow I so disagree that a Felon shouldnt have a gun yet 91 of you think they shouldn't.

    Have any of you placed any thought into the following:

    -Felonies in our prison system are so broad a range that you can get a felony for yelling a police dog that wont stop barking at you. Yes it has happened.
    -They are a horrible way to disarm society at large. We have over 10 million felons in the USA, probably more, and all of them have illegitimately been disarmed by law.
    -There is no crime short of a crime of violence with a gun or rape that should take away your inherent right to self defense once you served your sentence.
    -After all isn't prison a place to rehabilitate? I have to laugh at this one.
    -Why should a felon have a permanent loss of the right to legally own a firearm. NO WHERE in our Constitution does it say this right can be taken away.
    -The felony vs no gun right was created in order to keep guns out of your hands.
    -Next time you drive faster than 120mph in some states keep in mind that you may be committing a felony and yes lose your right to own a firearm and to self defense for that.

    Start using a little perspective people. A criminal whether felon or not is going to get a gun and commit a crime regardless, it isnt the felon, it is the man. Some men are rehabilitated and actually produce great fruit when they are released from prison. Why should they have to suffer because of a legal system designed from the very get go to make an industry worth BILLIONS of dollars to imprison and disarm people.

    There are very violent people out there and I am sure they have a record. Those people should never be allowed to purchase a firearm legally, however there are people that go to prison for stupid things like failing to pay taxes to the illegitimate thuggery IRS who is collecting money for the privately owned mega bank federal reserve who is not owned by or ran by the congress.

    There are people who go to prison for failure to pay child support but they cant have a right to ever again defend themselves? The problem with the Constitution is that so many people here who have catchy slogans and cool quotes maybe even the tattoo to go with it have no flipping idea what real Constitutional Freedom is, only what pleases their opinion of it.
    Crowman and Tangle like this.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    I agree with tangoseal ^......... I agree that violent/habitual criminals should not be allowed to own weapons. But as stated in the above post there are so many laws that have been tagged a felony that they people charged with the felony can even be remotely considered a danger to society. I am surprised that they haven't changed a speeding ticket to a felony.....

    The poll question "I agree that a felon should not be able to own a gun!" should not have worded as such since most will agree with it since we have been "programed" to go along with the law (passed 1968 correct me if I am wrong).
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  4. #63
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by tanksoldier View Post
    Of course not.

    Minors do not have the same rights as adults.

    It's also been well established that all rights have certain restrictions. Free speech does not allow you to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The right to peaceably assemble can be regulated as to time and place.

    I believe the right to keep and bear arms should not be as restricted as it is, but even in the most liberitarian society there would have to be some restrictions. Felons, the mentally incompetent and minors seem good categories to regulate.

    As for a SAM, if you're an adult why not? Again I do believe there needs to be SOME govt oversight, so register it as an AOW and have at it.
    The U.S. was a most libertarian society in its day and regulating guns for the class of minors didn't seem good to the founders. No, this came out of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which still prohibits sale of handguns to persons under age 21 and a boy or girl under age 18 is no longer able to buy guns or ammo. No, it doesn't seem good IMHO, the most foolish pervading provisions of GCA, are 1) that persons under 18 are prohibited from possessing a firearm (unless serving in the armed forces except for purposes of work, ranching or farming, target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction and) because the exemption applies only while the minor is also in the possession of written permission from a parent or guardian with a huge penalty for violation. Foolish for stuffed-shirt bureaucrats in Washington to blanket prohibit minors from possessing firearms in an attempt to legislate small details of the lives of free people.
    (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
    (A) a handgun; or
    (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
    (2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
    (A) a handgun; or
    (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
    (3) This subsection does not apply to—
    (A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile—
    (i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;
    (ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile’s parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm, except—
    (I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded handgun in a locked container directly from the place of transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause (i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly from the place at which such an activity took place to the transferor; or
    (II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian and at the direction of an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local law from possessing a firearm;
    (iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the juvenile’s possession at all times when a handgun is in the possession of the juvenile; and
    (iv) in accordance with State and local law;
    (B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed with a handgun in the line of duty;
    (C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or
    (D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which the juvenile is an invited guest.
    (4) A handgun or ammunition, the possession of which is transferred to a juvenile in circumstances in which the transferor is not in violation of this subsection shall not be subject to permanent confiscation by the Government if its possession by the juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful because of the conduct of the juvenile, but shall be returned to the lawful owner when such handgun or ammunition is no longer required by the Government for the purposes of investigation or prosecution.
    (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.
    (6)
    (A) In a prosecution of a violation of this subsection, the court shall require the presence of a juvenile defendant’s parent or legal guardian at all proceedings.
    (B) The court may use the contempt power to enforce subparagraph (A).
    (C) The court may excuse attendance of a parent or legal guardian of a juvenile defendant at a proceeding in a prosecution of a violation of this subsection for good cause shown.
    No, and such laws barring interstate transport of loaded, accessible weapons are a sticking point of defensive carry requiring permit reciprocity because transport of accessible, loaded weapons is a state and local level jurisdiction.
    It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    The law recognizes a permit to carry in a school zone, but that is state privilege (usurping of 2A, really) not this federal law, 18 USC § 922.
    As far as restricting weapons, governments legally restrict each other in the case of nukes. So I think that applies to all and to other WMD's. Further, I think, "bear", by definition, means arms that one may carry portably, without mechanical assistance. So a citizen may not arm his Piper Cub or any other such nonsense, though his right to carry on his Piper Cub shall not be infringed.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  5. #64
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    Wow this si a really really old thread, that has risen from the dead



    IT IS A ZOMBIE THREAD
    Its a catch 22 situation. If he had opened a new thread he would have been criticized for not using the search function. But being as he did use the search function and found this thread we will criticize him for not opening a new thread. Decisions decisions.

    Michael

  6. #65
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakotaranger View Post
    Amendment II

    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.

    Mainly the well regulated Militia portion because the militia is to protect the sovereignty of a state, not the National government seams to leave to the state the right to make there own laws concerning firearms ownership. The state government being the extention of the body politic and keep to the will of the people if the majority decides that they don't want you to carry in church that is the way a Republic works. We don't always get what we want because we are in the minority. (Well, with the exception of the oligarchy that the courts are trying to set themselves up as, but that's another story all it's and in this context has no relevence to the arguement)

    While there is a valid arguement with the "right shall not be infringed" portion of the Amendment, that particular arguement doesn't take into account the states rights attitude of the Constitution as a whole.
    No state is regulating on the basis of the prefatory, "militia", clause of 2A. They regulate on the basis of the 10th Amendment, and they overreach to do so. constitutionwatch says
    The 10th Amendment allows the states to pass laws that are not prohibited to them. They have taken this to mean they can legislate firearms as the wish.

    Then there just happens to be the pesky 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution. Therefore combining Article 6 Clause 2 and the 2nd Amendment means neither the Federal or State governments have the authority to legislate firearms. Make no mistake. The 10th Amendment does NOT negate the 2nd Amendment as many states have done. Likewise Federally, the abuse of the Commerce Clause does NOT negate the 2nd Amendment.
    Over four years ago, Regarding the "militia", DC v Heller Held:

    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. Pp. 2–53.

    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.

    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. Pp. 47–54.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  7. #66
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,835
    Well, with Heller and McDonald, maybe it's time for an update of our national 2A picture.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  8. #67
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    Wow I so disagree that a Felon shouldnt have a gun yet 91 of you think they shouldn't.

    Have any of you placed any thought into the following:

    -Felonies in our prison system are so broad a range that you can get a felony for yelling a police dog that wont stop barking at you. Yes it has happened.
    -They are a horrible way to disarm society at large. We have over 10 million felons in the USA, probably more, and all of them have illegitimately been disarmed by law.
    -There is no crime short of a crime of violence with a gun or rape that should take away your inherent right to self defense once you served your sentence.
    -After all isn't prison a place to rehabilitate? I have to laugh at this one.
    -Why should a felon have a permanent loss of the right to legally own a firearm. NO WHERE in our Constitution does it say this right can be taken away.
    -The felony vs no gun right was created in order to keep guns out of your hands.
    -Next time you drive faster than 120mph in some states keep in mind that you may be committing a felony and yes lose your right to own a firearm and to self defense for that.

    Start using a little perspective people. A criminal whether felon or not is going to get a gun and commit a crime regardless, it isnt the felon, it is the man. Some men are rehabilitated and actually produce great fruit when they are released from prison. Why should they have to suffer because of a legal system designed from the very get go to make an industry worth BILLIONS of dollars to imprison and disarm people.

    There are very violent people out there and I am sure they have a record. Those people should never be allowed to purchase a firearm legally, however there are people that go to prison for stupid things like failing to pay taxes to the illegitimate thuggery IRS who is collecting money for the privately owned mega bank federal reserve who is not owned by or ran by the congress.

    There are people who go to prison for failure to pay child support but they cant have a right to ever again defend themselves? The problem with the Constitution is that so many people here who have catchy slogans and cool quotes maybe even the tattoo to go with it have no flipping idea what real Constitutional Freedom is, only what pleases their opinion of it.
    If your argument is so convincing, then individual felons may petition to have their rights restored by the convicting state. And I don't agree that prison is a place to rehabilitate. That is a socialist dream. Prison is a place to separate the dishonest and criminally violent from the rest of honest society. Barring some civil rights to felons is another way to separate them.

    And the law does not apply to all felons as it exempts antitrust or unfair trade practices.

    And you favor giving felons the vote? Really? People who choose to act criminally shall decide the fate of the country? Or to serve on federal juries? Get real.

    The Constitution gives states the authority to bar felons from the rights of honest citizens by authorizing states to define who votes. Felons don't enjoy the same rights as honest citizens. As a champion of the Constitution to maintain all civil rights of felons, when you say, "[Those very violent] people should never be allowed to purchase a firearm", how do you prohibit Constitutionally?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    If your argument is so convincing, then individual felons may petition to have their rights restored by the convicting state. And I don't agree that prison is a place to rehabilitate. That is a socialist dream. Prison is a place to separate the dishonest and criminally violent from the rest of honest society. Barring some civil rights to felons is another way to separate them.

    And the law does not apply to all felons as it exempts antitrust or unfair trade practices.

    And you favor giving felons the vote? Really? People who choose to act criminally shall decide the fate of the country? Or to serve on federal juries? Get real.

    The Constitution gives states the authority to bar felons from the rights of honest citizens by authorizing states to define who votes. Felons don't enjoy the same rights as honest citizens. As a champion of the Constitution to maintain all civil rights of felons, when you say, "[Those very violent] people should never be allowed to purchase a firearm", how do you prohibit Constitutionally?
    Yeah, unlike the rest of the law abiding population which is so ignorant of the policies, voting records, and postitions of the candidates. I argue they couldn't hurt. The is country is so brain dead they would vote for my 20 year old cat ih had enough PAC's supporting him.

    As far as rehabilitation: it happens. Not every felon is committing crimes when they get out. I am not one to pamper folks in jail and think that if the "system" still thinks they will commit felonies they should stay locked up. But once released you served your debt to society and you should be allowed to start over again. You screw up (violent felon) again, throw away the key.

    Habitual drunk drivers and folks with multiple speeding tickets and running stop lights are more of a danger than some folks that are "felons" but they retain their rights.

  10. #69
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    If your argument is so convincing, then individual felons may petition to have their rights restored by the convicting state. And I don't agree that prison is a place to rehabilitate. That is a socialist dream. Prison is a place to separate the dishonest and criminally violent from the rest of honest society. Barring some civil rights to felons is another way to separate them.

    And the law does not apply to all felons as it exempts antitrust or unfair trade practices.

    And you favor giving felons the vote? Really? People who choose to act criminally shall decide the fate of the country? Or to serve on federal juries? Get real.

    The Constitution gives states the authority to bar felons from the rights of honest citizens by authorizing states to define who votes. Felons don't enjoy the same rights as honest citizens. As a champion of the Constitution to maintain all civil rights of felons, when you say, "[Those very violent] people should never be allowed to purchase a firearm", how do you prohibit Constitutionally?
    I didnt say vote anywhere in there did I? So you read what you wanted to read but not what I wrote. Plus voting is a game for sheeple anyway. Voting gives people the illusion that they are free and making a difference.

    We had like what 8 or 9 republican candidates and of all of them do you really think that Mitt Romney actually beat all them through popularity? Ron Paul had the longest list of delgates supporting him yet the powers above who control the media therefore control the message and controlled the outcome. Now we are stuck with the absolutely undesirable Mitt Romney and Barak Obama (by default incumbent) and you know what, I have never seen the media bat more for the candidate
    THEY" want and the voter doesnt.

    Still to this day our electoral process is a charade, a game, and a bread and circus to keep us happy and at bay. Why else do you think 18 year olds are allowed to vote but not drink and carry a firearm? You really think that they are not mature enough to handle alcohol and firearms but they sure lived long enough to be wise enough to make the proper decision about whom to vote for.

    Yeah try and argue that one. Tell me this is not a rigged game? Seriously come back with some compelling evidence for argument.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  11. #70
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,085
    You can Quote all you want you missing the point.
    What is Constitutional, what the second amendment means or says is decided by as few as of 5 out of 9.
    It can mean one thing today and have a whole new meaning when one of those nine are changed.
    The days of trying to base what is the law and what is or is not Constitutional are over.
    It can be either depending on who gets elected and who they get the chance to appoint.
    Now that should cause you to lose some sleep. But it won't.
    Crowman and ArmyMan like this.

  12. #71
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Yeah, unlike the rest of the law abiding population which is so ignorant of the policies, voting records, and postitions of the candidates. I argue they couldn't hurt. The is country is so brain dead they would vote for my 20 year old cat ih had enough PAC's supporting him.

    As far as rehabilitation: it happens. Not every felon is committing crimes when they get out. I am not one to pamper folks in jail and think that if the "system" still thinks they will commit felonies they should stay locked up. But once released you served your debt to society and you should be allowed to start over again. You screw up (violent felon) again, throw away the key.

    Habitual drunk drivers and folks with multiple speeding tickets and running stop lights are more of a danger than some folks that are "felons" but they retain their rights.
    You don't win the argument by sour grapes: the system is out of order and it doesn't matter anymore.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  13. #72
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    I didnt say vote anywhere in there did I? So you read what you wanted to read but not what I wrote. Plus voting is a game for sheeple anyway. Voting gives people the illusion that they are free and making a difference.

    We had like what 8 or 9 republican candidates and of all of them do you really think that Mitt Romney actually beat all them through popularity? Ron Paul had the longest list of delgates supporting him yet the powers above who control the media therefore control the message and controlled the outcome. Now we are stuck with the absolutely undesirable Mitt Romney and Barak Obama (by default incumbent) and you know what, I have never seen the media bat more for the candidate
    THEY" want and the voter doesnt.

    Still to this day our electoral process is a charade, a game, and a bread and circus to keep us happy and at bay. Why else do you think 18 year olds are allowed to vote but not drink and carry a firearm? You really think that they are not mature enough to handle alcohol and firearms but they sure lived long enough to be wise enough to make the proper decision about whom to vote for.

    Yeah try and argue that one. Tell me this is not a rigged game? Seriously come back with some compelling evidence for argument.
    I'm a champion for limiting the vote to honest productive citizens. Now, answer my question: as a champion of the Constitution to maintain all civil rights of felons, when you say, "[Those very violent] people should never be allowed to purchase a firearm", how do you prohibit Constitutionally?
    The Constitution gives states the power to deny firearms rights to felons as it gives states the power to define who votes and so to exclude felons from voting. A federal appeals court ruled in 2010 that banning gun possession from felons is constitutional. The same decision found no state law that bans felons from gun possession has ever lost a court challenge. In U.S. v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010), the federal court upheld a categorical ban against felons possessing firearms. It's (an automatic) part of their sentence. You agree in the case of "Very violent people" after you say, "Why should a felon have a permanent loss of the right to legally own a firearm. NO WHERE in our Constitution does it say this right can be taken away." I'm just asking how you justify your disallowing their purchase of a firearm, Constitutionally? The courts pass as constitutional gun bans for felons under a substantial relationship between felony possession and public safety (domestic tranquility?).
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  14. #73
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    I'm a champion for limiting the vote to honest productive citizens. Now, answer my question: as a champion of the Constitution to maintain all civil rights of felons, when you say, "[Those very violent] people should never be allowed to purchase a firearm", how do you prohibit Constitutionally?
    The Constitution gives states the power to deny firearms rights to felons as it gives states the power to define who votes and so to exclude felons from voting. A federal appeals court ruled in 2010 that banning gun possession from felons is constitutional. The same decision found no state law that bans felons from gun possession has ever lost a court challenge. In U.S. v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010), the federal court upheld a categorical ban against felons possessing firearms. It's (an automatic) part of their sentence. You agree in the case of "Very violent people" after you say, "Why should a felon have a permanent loss of the right to legally own a firearm. NO WHERE in our Constitution does it say this right can be taken away." I'm just asking how you justify your disallowing their purchase of a firearm, Constitutionally? The courts pass as constitutional gun bans for felons under a substantial relationship between felony possession and public safety (domestic tranquility?).
    The Constitution does not give the States anything. Its the other way around. The States and their citizens gave the Federal Government certain powers. What they did not give the Feds they kept for themselves.

    Michael

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    You don't win the argument by sour grapes: the system is out of order and it doesn't matter anymore.
    Sour grapes? How about refuting my statements instead or debating them. You made some points which I disagreed with and gave examples. Your only response was the above. Sounds like you have your mind made up and when presented with a different view you took your ball and went home becasue you didn't want to play anymore.

  16. #75
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    I'm a champion for limiting the vote to honest productive citizens.
    Does that mean that folks on welfare can't vote? Unemployed? What is your definition of productive? Landowners only?

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. What room for a safe room? Kids bedroom or mine?
    By skunkworks in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: March 8th, 2012, 09:02 PM
  2. vault / gun room / safe room questions
    By friesepferd in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 13th, 2010, 04:13 PM
  3. WA Supreme Court: ‘2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  4. 1st Amendment vs. 2nd Amendment in private forums
    By ShawnMoncali in forum Forum News, Feedback, Problems & Comments
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: March 15th, 2010, 11:54 AM
  5. Do you leave windows open when you are not in the room?
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: June 25th, 2008, 05:38 PM

Search tags for this page

6 days left until the 2nd amendment fate is decided.
,
can a felon own a cannon in wisconsin
,
can a felon use a gun in self defense
,

does the second amendment leave room for interpretation

,
federal cartridge 5.56mmx45mm
,
how do i restore my right to bear arms
,
private of matoss definition
,
views regarding the second amendment
,
what are the laws regarding felons and guns in the house
,
where in the constitution does it speak on felons and loss of gun rights
,
why shouldnt 2nd amendment written
,
why we should leave the second amendment along
Click on a term to search for related topics.