Pennsylvania lawsuit tests high court's ruling that lifts D.C. gun ban

[ham385]

Originally Posted by Bmaninmifco

I'm in.
Though it doesn't seem like the minority does it.

I agree too. I had a revelation a couple years ago when I joined the forum and entered a discussion very similar to this. In short, if we can't trust the felon down the street, then he shouldn't be on the street - period. In other words, if he's to dangerous to own a gun, he shouldn't be free. The problem isn't felons having guns, the problem is dangerous felons being released without being rehabilitated.

[pex]

Originally Posted by ham385

In other words, if he's to dangerous to own a gun, he shouldn't be free.

Probably a good standard for the loss of rights.

That guy doesn't stand a chance and is wasting tax dollars. The SCOTUS ruled that laws prohibiting felons wasn't a violation.

SCOTUS ruled no such thing. Deciding on the licitness of forbidding felons or mentally insane from firearms possession was not a barrier to be surmounted on the way to answering the questions brought before the court.

Scalia in Heller says that THIS CASE should not be taken as the answer to that. Perhaps he alludes to how he or the concurring might see challenges to those situations in the future. Other courts may mention this in passing, but it is not an authority of any manner.

[sutehk]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I concur, though I think D-FENS and I are going to be in the minority on this one...

I'm with this "minority" as well. How many people here have done something overly stupid when they were younger? Do you regret it now? Would you do it again? I know I've done some really stupid things in my youth (not that I am that old).

I do agree that the more serious felonies and "non-rehabilitated" criminals do not deserve their rights back. Those who can show a usefulness to society again should reacquire their rights, IMHO.

[shooter357]

Originally Posted by D-FENS

I hope the guy wins. I contend that a loss of rights, whether temporary or permanent should be an explicit part of sentencing. That you can lose a right forever based ONLY upon the classification of the crime you're convicted of is preposterous.

Maybe before someone commits a crime or are planning on doing something illegal, that person should look up the punishments for said crime. i agree that there should be some procedure for non-violent, non-sexual crimes to be looked at to determine threat, but seriously, we are talking about serious crimes. To say that they didn't understand that they would lose their firearm ownership rights is rediculous.

[CoyoteJack]

It would be a breath of fresh air to have some common sense used in law.

In cases where a non violent felon has served their time I believe their rights should be restored fully. Violent offenders should have the ability to petition for their gun rights back which should require a review of their case at their own expense. Violent repeat offenders shouldn't be let out of jail and as such won't be needing their gun rights restored.

[Autonomous]

Originally Posted by ham385

I agree too. I had a revelation a couple years ago when I joined the forum and entered a discussion very similar to this. In short, if we can't trust the felon down the street, then he shouldn't be on the street - period. In other words, if he's to dangerous to own a gun, he shouldn't be free. The problem isn't felons having guns, the problem is dangerous felons being released without being rehabilitated.

Yea I have to say I agree with this...
I was bracing myself for a thread full of people who ranted and raved about how felons should never own guns post conviction....
This is one of the many reasons I like this forum...
-A
PS I don't think this guy has a snowballs chance in hell of winning but I we can hope....

[exceltoexcel]

You CAN yell fire in a crowded theater. There is no law against it. People get confused. The law isn't against free speech its against your actions causing harm. Say causing a riot or danger to others as a result of your actions. it doesn't attack your first amendment rights. You can stand up in the theater and yell this movie stinks all you want, you're not violating the law! You'll be asked to leave and if you don't then you're violating the law.

Hell, there might actually be a fire in the theater!

In the proverbial "fire in a crowded theater" arguments, it could be argued that you're rights are not abridged. That you do have that right, however, you do not have the right to cause danger to others. In this case that is what would happen by your speech but the speech isn't being attacked. Only the gross negligence of your actions.

You have the right to say " give me your money" when you're robbing someone, you do not have the right to rob someone. The crime isn't saying "give me your money", it's robbery.

This guy is totally correct, our second doesn't remove the right to keep and bear arms for anyone.

The way around this is to make it a stipulation of the punishment process. All we have to do is make it so that it is a life sentence that you cannot own a firearm. This would have to be declared at sentencing time. Also by court order on an individual level for people with serious mental illness.

This guy, by the very act of a lazy legislator, on both the state and federal level, should get his firearms back..

We need to hold our lazy, stupid representatives responsible for these oversights, not the populous.

We could re-write the second, or we could honor it. This nonsense of half ignoring it has to come to an end.

Originally Posted by Siobhra

The "fire in a crowded theater" argument can be be a good example in one sense. Rights are abridged in only the most extreme case. There is no law in any state nor is there any federal law against yelling fire in a crowded theater. The laws you will be charged with if you do yell fire will be charges related to the harm it would cause. Causing public disorder, public endangerment, etc. Those are the types of charges.

Gun rights on the other hand are dismissed lightly. What is a felon has been so watered down that it is a joke. All felons lose their rights regardless of the crime. Where other rights are debated on a whole host of things and the danger they pose, gun rights are not. Does the reporter have the right to publish state secrets with the freedom of the press or does the person have the right to drive a car impaired with drugs?

People lose their gun-rights for all sorts of trivial reasons. And a life long lose of rights should be even more so looked closely at. The person was convicted 13 years ago for those crimes.

I feel that part of the sentencing for a crime the judge should say if the rights are lost forever. Or maybe he should rule that all records should be expunged after so many years if the person stays clean. If not then it should be up to the state to start a separate case to determine if the gun rights are lost.

An individual person can lose rights but not a whole class of people.

[exceltoexcel]

By committing a crime, the felon has forfeited a number of rights, including the right to serve on a jury and to vote, as well as the right to own a firearm, he said.

He's a moron.. this just isn't true. It depends on the state you're in..

It seems only two states flat out forbid felons from voting ever..

Virginia and Kentucky.

Main and Vermont allow you to vote while IN prison!

I believe every other state allows you to vote if you apply to have the right restored.

"Each state has developed its own process of restoring voting rights to ex-offenders but most of these restoration processes are so cumbersome that few ex-offenders are able to take advantage of them."

Ohhhhhhhh so cumbersome, in most cases you have to fill out a form and mail it in.... :rolling my eyes:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/Adm...fdlawsinus.pdf

[w1cked]

Hope he wins.

[Brown-Bear]

Originally Posted by Dredly

question...

how does he have 7 hand guns in his house if he is not permitted to purchase them? do they belong to family members or room mates?

I belive the weapons in question were found in his home in 1995 when the investigation into the initial conviction began, and he was not a prohibited person.

I used to think that felons should never be allowed to guns. But recently I find myself lightening this to just the most extreme cases. The title felon is used to such a degree that it near meaningless anymore. In the cases of say rape, shild moestation, capital murder things like that yes, take-em away. But there should most certanly be some type of rstoration policy after serving your sentence. Don't know what that would be, but I'd like to see one in the future.

Dave