home

House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemeanor Sex Offenders

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 11:02:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Proving again that sex offenders, however minor, are the new pariahs in our society, the House of Representatives today passed a bill that would outlaw misdemeanor sex offenders of minors from possessing, buying or selling firearms.

What is the connection? Violent sex offenders don't get misdemeanor convictions. This is as bad as the law it was patterned after, the Violence Against Women act, which prohibits misdemeanor domestic violence offenders from possessing a weapon. Both laws are attempts by Congress to mass-federalize state and local crime, and another step towards rendering the Second Amendment a nullity.

Update: It gets worse:

[The law] would create a Web site for child sex offenders and require that felony offenders face up to 20 years in prison for failing to comply with registration requirements. The bill also requires felony offenders to register for life and authorizes the death penalty for sex crimes that result in the killing of a child.

And the bill makes new hate crimes. Liberals will be for this bill. I part company with them on every aspect of it, as I suspect, will most criminal defense lawyers. At least the ones that aren't still prosecutors at heart.

< Media Coverage of CNN Victory | Brownie Plays the Blame Game >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemeanor Sex Offenders | 10 comments (10 topical)
    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    without commenting on the efficacy of the specific bill in question, i still stand confused by your comments regarding the second amendment. where, in the second amendment, is there stated an absolute right to bear arms? for that matter, since the term "arms", by both webster's and historical definition, refers solely to weapons, where do have any right to possess ammunition? the two are not, by definition, mutually inclusive items. this question is good for 10 points on your bar exam. please address both the historical and practical effects of SC rulings to the contrary of an absolute right to bear arms, in the absence of a state requirement that you be part of a "well regulated militia".

    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#2)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    I have always been stuck on the 2nd... The phrase "well regulated" is the one that sticksout like a sore thumb, to me anyways. The majority of home arsenal aficionados most definately do not belong to a well regualted militia... If they belong to a militia it is invariably of the Montana Freemen type... And those guys are as big of a threat to personal gun ownership in this country as any left winger... This law posted above is another typical BS response... Now if someone were to say (like me) that it makes no sense to deny a targeted population of American citizens means of effective self defense, s/he would be accused of being soft on crime. This is insane! The man and women passing this legislation have gone off of the deepend! If gun rights are restricted for one class of misdemeanor criminals, what can possibly stop the gov't from restricting another class of misdemeanors? Like, say, people arrested protesting? Once again, freedom rings loud and true!

    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    I do have to say I don't understand your general connection between this and the Violence Against Women Act. There is a plethora of scientific research on the commonplace of violence escalation in cases of domestic violence. I agree, there is dearth of research demonstrating that the amount of physical violence in sex offending against minors. However, this is not true in domestic violence. You can always argue that limiting gun rights is wrong, but the line of argument you used only applies to sex offenses against juveniles.

    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#4)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    The problem with the "well regulated militia" argument is that the founding fathers used the word "people" rather than "state". Had they intended to say, as this argument usually goes, that the states must retain the right to keep arms in order to arm a well-regulated militia in times of need, they would have said "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the states to form and arm such militias shall not be infringed." Instead, they said, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". As I see it, those who make this argument are stuck in a bind: either the founding father actually meant "state" when they said "people", in which case the rest of the Bill of Rights is open to re-interpretation everywhere else the word "people" is used (i.e., does the fourth amendment guarantee the right of the "state" to be secure from unlawful search and seizure?), or they made an incredibly stupid error in the text, in which case, again, the rest of the Bill of Rights is open to re-interpretation (since we have no way of knowing what other "errors" may have crept in). Either way, it's not very pretty. As for this bill: The problem is not juvenile sex offenders losing their rights, although that is a problem in its own right. The problem is that we have accepted the idea that these kinds of laws are not "infringements" on a right guaranteed, not granted, under the Second Amendment.

    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    The problem with the Violence Against Women's Act is that it should not be a federal criminal law - it should be left to the states- our federal courts are already overburdened and we shouldn't further clog them with these cases.

    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    It seems to me that "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state" has little legal weight. It's a statement of why the right to keep and bear arms is important. It is not a limitation on that right nor on the restriction of the government's power. Other parts of other Constitutions use similar grammar patterns. That angle is layed out in detail here. I haven't read the whole thing, though, simply because it's long and I am lazy.

    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    If I were a woman, I would be quite distressed if protections for me against violence -- particularly domestic violence -- needed to be considered when deciding where to reside in this country. Generally, this country doesn't have the best track record with things we leave up to the states.

    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:52 PM EST
    the problem with your's, and other's, arguments regarding the use of the terms "well regulated militia" and "people" vs "states", is that, in the context of the times the constitution was authored, it has no substance. "people" make up a "well regulated militia" not "states". the authors were very precise with the language they used, everything had a reason for being in that document, none was merely an exercise in rhetoric. the reason "people" was used, not states, is because each person was expected to supply his own arms, the state was expected to supply the ball and powder. further, the only legally recognized militias were those raised and regulated by the states. provide examples of other, merely rhetorical language in the document, aside, perhaps, from the preamble. you've failed, however, to address the central thesis of my question: is this an absolute right, not ever subject to trimming by the legislature? if that be your contention, the SC apparently doesn't, and never has, agreed with that premise.

    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:52 PM EST
    cpinva ,
    provide examples of other, merely rhetorical language in the document, aside, perhaps, from the preamble.
    I don't know of any from the U.S. Constitution. The article I linked above provides examples from other constitutions written in that era:
    The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty
    In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed
    The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever
    The grammar is plainer in the second two, but they do contain "merely rhetorical" parts. One wouldn't interpret the 1st example as only covering press and not the average citizen. One wouldn't interpret the 3rd example as only protecting activities which can be shown to advance the rights of the people.
    you've failed, however, to address the central thesis of my question: is this an absolute right, not ever subject to trimming by the legislature?
    Sorry, I didn't address it because I agreed with you. It's not an absolute right. Neither is the right to free speech, assembly, privacy, and so on. So I guess I consider it an individual, non-absolute right with no legal entanglements with militias.

    Re: House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemean (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    Many want to argue the constitution which doesn't exist anymore. Anybody who has been arrested and gone through the justice system will tell you the ONLY gold standard is the gold. The bottom line is, for many, you can go to prison an innocent man and come out a career criminal. If I did ten years for a violent felony and got out on Saturday I could get a gun on Sunday. Forget the constitution, its a joke.

    House Passes Bill to Outlaw Guns for Misdemeanor Sex Offenders | 10 comments (10 topical)