home

Second Amendment Remedies

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:17:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYTimes:

While previously a small number of felons were able to reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements — part of an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.

< Applicability Of The Bystander Theory: 40 Years Of Bystanding On Inequality? | NBAPA Disclaims, Files Antitrust Suit Against NBA >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Second Amendment Remedies | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'm all for full restoration.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:22:50 AM EST
    of all rights as citizens upon completion of sentence and parole...most of all voting rights, but 2nd amendment rights too.

    Pay your debt, do your time and start again with a clean slate.  Anything less is uncivilized imo.

    I agree (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:14:48 PM EST

    If you can't be trusted with a firearm, you should not be let out of the slammer in the first place.  At the very least, nonviolent felons should have all rights restored.

    Parent
    Who gets to decide? (none / 0) (#4)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    If you can't be trusted with a firearm, you should not be let out of the slammer in the first place.  



    Parent
    Sometimes I get tired of thinking of subjects. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    Who gets to decide who should be trusted and when? I guess it would be the court system, juries, and parole boards, same as now. Now, I think the system should be rehabilative in nature, so when a person gets out they should be "improved" on relevant metrics. When you have a punitive system I don't see any reason why society should expect that more prison time makes people less dangerous at all -- that isn't really a goal of the system. So, it's an imperfect system even now in terms of choices made about sentencing and parole and reinstatement of rights.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#11)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    I'm uncomfortable with that.  Stipulating that it's an imperfect system now, all that's "fine" while a convicted felon is serving the sentence .  But once that's over?  I think their influence should be over as well.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    Oh yeah! Once they're out of jail they are out. That's what I'm saying both here and broadly in this thread. I'm saying that those groups determine when the person is out of jail.

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:58:32 PM EST
    Thank you for the clarification.

    Parent
    When your sentence.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    is completed you are free, trust has nothing to do with it.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:33:57 PM EST
    Don't forget that we should trust pedophile to live near schools and daycares and be allowed to work with kids.

    Parent
    Again.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:37:18 AM EST
    trust has nothing to do with it.  

    Pay your debt, get a clean slate.  That being said hardcore pedophilia is one of the few crimes I support long sentences for.

    Parent

    I tend to agree but... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Romberry on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:13:57 PM EST
    ...in cases of violent felons who uses firearms in the commission of that felony (and I mean used, not merely were in possession of), I'd be inclined to make an exception on the restoration of 2A rights, or at least restrict those rights to within the confines of their own home or property.

    Parent
    There does need to be some limits however (none / 0) (#3)
    by nyjets on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    Yes, for some felons, giving back there 2nd amendment rights is correct. But do we necessarily want to give all felons the fight to bear arms.
    What about a convicted stalker whose victim is still alive or for that matter someone who beat his wife.
    I am also leary about giving gun rights to anyone convicted of a violent crime.
    Then point is that there should be some steps taken for all criminals who get out of prison before they are allowed to own a gun.

    What other amendments are deniable? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    Do you think it would be right to take away some repeat felons' right to a civil trial by their peers because they're, let's say, abusing the court system? Or perhaps convicted drug dealers should have their 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure stripped because they can't be trusted to have private property? Or should people on public housing assistance not be protected against the quartering of troops? I don't see why certain classes of people, regardless of their history or circumstances, should not retain the full set constitutional rights enjoyed by all citizens. Admittedly that may make for some poor social policy, including felons with guns.

    Parent
    trusted to have private property? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    That's pretty much the objective of asset forfeiture laws, isn't it?

    Parent
    Not quite. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    No. While I disagree with those laws too, the concepts are somewhat different. In my hypothetical case convicted drug dealers would effectively not have any ability to have truly private property ever again because they'd proven untrustworthy -- not just to have their current property seized.

    Parent
    No I do not (none / 0) (#9)
    by nyjets on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    I disagree. Guns are dangerous. Therefore I have always believed that some regulation is necessary. (Gun registration and requring owners to have a license)

    None of the examples you have given represent a threat to the public.
    However, allowing SOME convicted felons the right to own a gun can be dangerous like the examples I have given earlier.
    And honestly, I am not opposed to eventually granting a violent offender the right to own a gun.I am saying to wait and see what he or she does first after they are released from prison.

    Parent

    Not up to you. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    I bet many people feel that giving convicted drug dealers the ability to invoke their 4th amendment rights represents a threat to the public. There are many people who out-and-out say that giving convicted criminals further access to the court system is an abuse that should be curbed. Perhaps you disagree with those people. But that's the point. It's not up to this or that person to decide which classes of people can have their rights abridged -- either they are rights or they are privileges. Many people have decided, based on their social preference, that the 2nd amendment is a privilege and not a right; they'd hesitate to do that to other Constitional rights. I disagree. The SCOTUS can interpret what the rights mean for everyone, but no one should be able to exclude certain people from protection of those rights.

    Parent
    That's what parole is for. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:37:19 PM EST
    Once off paper and out from under supervision, all rights should be restored.

    Parent
    Not limited to convicted felons. But, FYI, (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:15:42 PM EST
    both CA state courts and federal courts have discretion pursuant to statute to deem a plaintiff a vexatious litigant if the statutory pre-conditions are met.  Result:  denial of access to courts as a plaintiff regarding redundant claims.  

    Parent
    I'm all for the 2nd amendment... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    ... I even believe that someone like me, who's never been arrested, much less convicted of anything, should be free to own whatever the hell I want.  (Those UZIs have always looked pretty cool)

    Then I see some open-carry advocate strutting around with his (compensatory) 45 caliber S&W strapped to his hip and I realize that they're all a bunch of wackos.

    Seems we are accorded few more rights than the lowest common denominator, i.e., wackos and convicts.

    Scary. But I would expect gun rights (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:21:49 PM EST
    advocates to say, but convicted felons who are barred by state law from possessing a firearm could still illegally use a firearm to commit a crime.  

    Guns don't kill people--do they?

    Also, I would have anticipated Jeralyn would post this article.  

    Does the diarist have an opinion on this subject?

    The diarist does (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    The opposite of Jeralyn's.

    Heller was wrongly decided.

    There is no individual right to own a gun.

    The NRA is a travesty.

    Parent

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:37:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I guess that's the number one place (none / 0) (#21)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:39:19 PM EST
    where I part ways with liberals. I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

    Parent
    Except the part about the NRA. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    I firmly believe in my right as on individual to own guns, but I am decidedly a former member of the NRA.

    Parent
    I'm with you... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:41:54 PM EST
    though I choose not to own one...I think the founders looked at it as an assumed right, like owning a knife or a hammer.

    Parent
    Where does the constitution deny... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Romberry on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:17:15 PM EST
    ...the right to keep and bear arms? Where does it grant the government the right to deny firearms from being owned by the people? You surely are not going to go down the path that says the rights of the people are granted to them by the constitution rather than existing inherently. Or are you?

    Parent
    Commerce (none / 0) (#27)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:18:07 AM EST
    .

    Guns move in interstate commerce.  Ergo, regulation of interstate commerce means the feds can either mandate you purchase a gun or prohibit you from purchasing or owning a gun.

    Strangely, the 18th amendment was completely unnecessary as Congress apparently already had the power in question.

    .

    Parent

    What?!? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:47:03 AM EST
    Guns move in interstate commerce.  Ergo, regulation of interstate commerce means the feds can either mandate you purchase a gun or prohibit you from purchasing or owning a gun.

    The Commerce Clause has been interpreted broadly, but the mere fact that guns move in interstate commerce doesn't give the government the right to mandate ownership or flatly prohibit the ownership/possession of guns.

    See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

    Parent

    Nature of Fear in a culture (none / 0) (#30)
    by Palli on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:04:25 PM EST
    The fact remains we should working to write and enact real gun regulations- and finding ways to retrieve common sense reading of the 2nd Amendment.  Guns kill people when people shoot guns. The success of the NRA to fund the passage of Conceal Carry and Castle Doctrine laws is a failure of the rest of us-the majority of Americans- to think clearly about the Nature of Fear in a culture.

    "There are only two kinds of politics, the politics of fear, and the politics of trust." Ed Muskie for President 1972 Campaign Brochure

    You actually hit it on the nail (none / 0) (#31)
    by nyjets on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:56:08 PM EST
    You have one side that say no regulation at all, everybody can own a gun including military style hardware. Then you have the other side who say no guns, period.
    There is plenty of room to compromise on the issue but the issue has been hijacked by extremists on both sides.

    Parent
    Second Amendment Remedies | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment