"You don't like the fact your neighbors own guns? Move to a new neighborhood." - me, a random person on the internet.

What an asshole. Him, not me.

Umm, I recently had a thought. If the more ardent gun rights advocates believe that the Second Amendment prohibits any regulation of weapons ownership, doesn't that mean that criminals have the same unlimited, unfettered rights? The 2nd is very clear -- "the right of the people". Not "some people". Not "Nice people".

If you disagree with this notion, I'd be interested in the logic involved in selecting who has the rights and who doesn't. Who does that selecting? The government? Oops, no, we don't want to go *there*, now do we?

Seems to me, folks, you can't have it both ways.

Well damn! John Brown has us against the wall. It's either nuclear weapons for everyone or we are hypocrites!!

John,

Without going into it too much, the courts, scholars, and pretty much everyone understand that Constitutional protections are not extended to convicted criminals.

Having been convicted, their Constitutional rights were taken away by the government. By your logic, inmates in prison would not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. If a guard wanted to search their cell they would need a warrant from a judge.

GUN CONTROL KILLS after all beciuase liberals got those gun free school zones passed one of those VIRGINIA TECH students could have stopped that myrderer but as usial the liberal left-wing news media prefered to blame guns as they always do becuase liberals have brains the consitancy of raspberry jam

John Brown, it may be that it was the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 that first stripped convicted felons of their 2A rights. FFA38 was supplanted by the Gun Control Act of 1968 which extended the list of people not allowed to have guns. The Lautenberg Ammendment of GCA68 took things to another level, and stripped 2A rights from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. It then went the pentultimate step and took away 2A rights from those merely served a restraining order, which strips the Due Process part of the 5A down to the bones, if not down to the marrow.

Mr. Brown may be right; go read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and find where the "do a crime, lose your guns" part is. I've heard convicts can't vote either, and they have limited rights of free assembly (as in they can't hang with other crooks) but I've never heard that they have limited free speech.

It may very well be that, prior to 1938, a convicted criminal served his time and then was returned to full citizenship status upon release, guns included. Did the laws see more crimes as capital in those days? I know sentencing was carried out far more swiftly. Was their less parole as well? If the really bad guys get convicted and hung for horse theivin, cattle rustlin, rape, child abuse, murder, arson, burglary, kidnapping, and robbery ... then the ones who serve time and get released probably committed much lesser crimes and so would have the right to get all their rights back.

I've got to think about this ... in it's "benevolence" the government does away with most capital punishment, but at the same time creates a class of lesser citizens who have an aspect of their punishment that never ends. Kind of like the Meaghan's Law registry today.

Ravenwood,

When you go to prison your rights ARE taken away. Liberty for one, Pursuit of Happiness for another, and Life if your crime was severe enough. That's what its all about isn't it?

However, when you are released from prison, you get your rights back. Well, some of them. Sometimes.

And it looks like just like any liberal they still want their armed guards around them

Well, at least there was one person (Drew458) who actually addressed my point - and well and thoughtfully at that. Most people are confusing the rights of parolees with the rights of incarcerated felons. Parole is sort of a half-way house, and once you're out from under that, I do believe you have more of your rights than during either it or your prison time. I could be wrong, I haven't researched it. But yes, I do see a bit of hypocrisy in claiming that the 2nd is absolute, but not *really* absolute, because we good guys get to pick and choose the rights of people we don't like. It smacks of hypocrisy, and it is a slippery slope. Very slippery, as recent US legal history has proven beyond a doubt.

And BTW, before you start putting words in my mouth and inferring opinions that I don't agree with, I am not a gun owner, nor a member of the NRA. More importantly, I am *not* a fan of big government - that government is best that governs least. There is at least one thing worse than criminals running amok. And that is the government running amok.

Just because I posit a certain position on an issue, doesn't mean I agree with it. Devil's Advocate and all that.

Cheers

And more to John and Drew's point, it doesn't help matters that politicians seem to think that getting tough on crime means making anything and everything a felony.

Right-o to that Ravenwood. That Lautenberg Ammendment has to be one of the worst bits of unconstitutional law ever made. But then, so was GCA38 which lead to Miller, one of the top 10 worst SCOTUS decisions.

John Brown - another thing to think about is the absoluteness of your absolute. :-) The 2A may or may not be "incorporated" under the 14th, and I'm not sure if its ever been decided if "incorporation" is necessary to give this particular Right of the People precedence over the rights of the states. Two hundred years of legal shennanigans have made a lot of mess from the simple elegance that was the system back in 1783. To most people, law is nearly holy writ, but to lawyers law is just another tool to use to get what they want.

Keep on eye on DC v. Heller: SCOTUS is going to consider putting it on the docket November 9, and if it goes in the decision they make could impact 2A, the whole "incorporation" thing (it could overturn Slaughterhouses 1873 and Miller 1939) and possibly GCA68. To get all of that SCOTUS would have to make a really bold decision, akin to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; what part of that don't you understand, meatwad?" which could in turn lead to a whole new era of legal conservatism. I'm not getting my hopes up, but its about bloody time if you ask me.

When you are convicted of crime, you give up many rights. You temporarily lose the right to decide where you are going to live, to travel, to even go out on the street - and in most states, for a serious enough crime you also permanently lose the right to vote and to keep and bear arms. There's no doubt that the legislature has the power to permanently deprive a felon of these rights. (Why Congress should be able to deprive a felon of the RKBA over a non-federal crime is a whole different question.)

I'd question whether it's actually good policy. If convicts want to commit more crimes using firearms, they have no trouble in obtaining them. Banning felons from possessing guns thus only inconveniences those who are trying to go straight...

I generally shy away from discussion forums concerning gun control/gun ownership, remembering the extremism rampant in the old pre-Net BBS network conferences, populated by the "cold dead fingers" faction. It was a ton of fun there, free speech by the truckload, but ... noisy on both sides, y'know? I must say this place is a refreshing change, marked by civil and intelligent discussion and open minds.

But I digress

Since my last post I was thinking about the sixth amendment language, where it says "nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Two points. Would that "property" include weapons? Does the "due process" thing override the 2nd, as in laws passed by legislatures restricting gun ownership? Secondly, the phrase "the people" has always interested me. Does it mean any/all people/persons? Or does it mean the people at large, as in the populace? I've always leaned towards the latter, and I've been thinking lately the difference between that phrase and "any person" in the 6th might indicate the latter interpretation.

Now, the 1st uses the phrase "the people", as in peaceful assembly (which sort of implies a group of persons) but also as in redress of grievances, which could also be said as "the right of any person or persons to redress..." So I'm not sure what all that means. I like the idea of being faithful to the authors of the Constitution, but I'm very happy that they wrote in a process for change. In fact, a process without any limitations whatever to the degree of that change.

Some will call "the people/any person" just semantic nitpicking, but I bridle at the phrase "just semantics". It's the study of the meaning of language, and what else do we have except the study of language to study the meaning of the Constitution?

-----------

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

John,

My view is that the Constitution is there to protect rights from the state. So passing laws to restrict those freedoms is not due process. It's an unConstitutional law.

The people, means just that. You, me, and anyone else who may choose to exercise their rights.

I'm not one of the crowd that thinks people should lose their rights forever because of a mistake in their past. Especially since the legislature keeps passing laws that make it much easier to trip people up.

Well, it seems the Supremes have decided to weigh in on the issue. From the reports I have heard on TV, they are going to decide the issue of whether the 2nd applies to individual rights or state rights, which is what the decision concerning a law on handgun ownership in D.C.addressed. That federal appeals court said it's a right of the states, not individuals -- i.e., "militias".

Arguments set for next summer. We shall see, we shall see, we shall see. Whatever happens, it won't be a boring news day.

John,

I am a convicted felon. I have read all of your posted comments and would like to add my two cents worth.

Prior to my conviction I had a variety of jobs distantly related to law enforcement. Things like privete security, loss control for a major chain, state prison guard, county jail guard, etc.

I made 1 mistake in 1997 and did 2 years in a military brig.

One comment was made that struck home. Where in the constitution or prior does it declare that felons are no longer citizens and thus have no rights. Are we to pay for these crimes for the rest of our lives instead of just the sentence handed down to us. After we serve our sentences, shouldn't we be given the chance to return completely to society to contribute and prove that we have rehabilitated?

Just because I have commited a crime does that mean I no longer have the right to protect my family?

The other arguement I have heard is that the right to keep and bear arms was for the people who would make up the general militia. So the government would then be saying that in the event, God help us, that we would be invaded that they would not want people who have felons to help protect our country from an invading force.

Additionally I also spent 15 years in the military. Would the government say we don't care about all your military experience and what you could contribute to our protection, we don't care anymore because you commited a crime.

Regardless of my past I am still dedicated to this country and it's freedoms. I would never hesitate whatsoever to pick up a gun and defend it regardless of the laws. I truly love my country and it's founding fathers wisdom.

I may be off track but these are only my views and would be interedted in hearing others responses. I will check back on this board or you can contact me at [email protected].

Anthony,

Technically people are supposed to be able to restore their gun rights after they have served their time.

The problem is that Congress (specifically Senator Chuck Schumer) has prevented the government from processing applications to restore gun rights by defunding that arm of the ATF.

Basically, Schumer is using his appropriations power to effectively ban guns. As long as Schumer is there, you can forget it.