The Government position on the 2nd Amendment

[Lodge2004]

I was doing some research at work on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website (http://www.uscis.gov) and thought I'd take a look at what we teach those who are applying for citizenship in the U.S.

I was suprised to see the 2A represented as an individual right; contrary to the position taken by most on the left.

• Learn About the United States : Quick Civics Lessons by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Question 74 – “…The first eight Amendments set out individual rights, such as the freedom of expression, the right to bear arms, freedom from search without warrant, freedom to not be tried twice for the same crime…â€?
  
  The Citizen’s Almanac by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution protects the rights of individuals to have firearms for personal defense. This privilege is subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unfit persons, or those with the intent to criminally misuse guns or other firearms, from obtaining such items.

Unfortunately, the left is very good at getting their message out through the media and educational institutions. Although these two documents referred to an individual right, there were also numerous references from other institutions that stated it was a collective right (i.e. militia).

[stevie_d_64]

Something else...

"The Constitution protects the rights of individuals to have firearms for personal defense."

Which it was designed, and should be interpreted to do so, until amended...

"This privilege is subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent unfit persons, or those with the intent to criminally misuse guns or other firearms, from obtaining such items."

To which the government excels at...

A reasonable restriction is still an infringement...IMO...

Bottom line...

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual "Inalienable Right"...There is no higher authority endowed upon us...Period...

-end of rant-

[kauboy]

Agreed Stevie. I saw somewhere that a group is pushing for all gun control to be abolished.
They say they will not be satisfied until ever man, woman, and responsible child has the ability to own any type of gun they wish.

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Of course you would always have to throw in the "except for convicted felons and the mentally unstable" clause, in an attempt to ease tensions.
We should never start assuming that people will commit crimes with guns. Only punish those who have. We aren't heading for "Minority Report" here.

[stevie_d_64]

Agreed Stevie. I saw somewhere that a group is pushing for all gun control to be abolished.
They say they will not be satisfied until ever man, woman, and responsible child has the ability to own any type of gun they wish.

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Of course you would always have to throw in the "except for convicted felons and the mentally unstable" clause, in an attempt to ease tensions.
We should never start assuming that people will commit crimes with guns. Only punish those who have. We aren't heading for "Minority Report" here.

Not sure if its a group, but I know Ron Paul files a bill every session that calls for this...

I also believe it is logical that the law that makes it illegal for a convicted felon (criminal) to obtain, posess or use a firearm in this country is a moot point, and one that I do not believe is really applicable to the gun-control laws, regulations and ordinances (all of the infringing stuff) as a whole...

But thats just how I catagorize and partition laws that regulate the parameters of the convicted criminal community, and the infringing policies that effect the law-abiding community...Of which there should be a sum total of zero that should be applied to us...

The parity or cohesiveness that some legislators try to keep from separating, in regards to the law-abiding community "shall not be infringed", and the convicted criminal community that needs the "reasonable gun-control" efforts...You must agree that the separation (of the catagories) and leaving the regulation on the side of the convicted criminal element, and eliminating those same regulations that blanket against the law-abiding community, is where it needs to happen...

[nitrogen]

This might be an extreme viewpoint, but I believe convicted felons (who have served their time and are not on probation, parole, etc) should be allowed to own weapons.

if they are too dangerous to be able to defend themselves, they should be in jail or worse.

But I will admit that's probaby a simplistic viewpoint.

[seamusTX]

if they are too dangerous to be able to defend themselves, they should be in jail or worse.

That's not how the system works. Criminals are convicted to a sentence based upon what they did; and they're released when they finish it, or earlier if they keep their nose clean.

There is no requirement to repent or even admit that they committed a crime. They can spend their entire sentence contemplating revenge on the people who put them in prison -- and often do.

- Jim

[jimlongley]

This might be an extreme viewpoint, but I believe convicted felons (who have served their time and are not on probation, parole, etc) should be allowed to own weapons.

if they are too dangerous to be able to defend themselves, they should be in jail or worse.

But I will admit that's probaby a simplistic viewpoint.

When I was younger I always thought that one of the penalties for being a felon was losing a variety of rights, voting, guns, etc and thought that was they way it should be.

As I have grown older I have mellowed that point of view, and now I don't know where I would draw the line.

I have my brother, who pled guilty (on the very poor advice of my father, and that's not a subject I want to get into) to felony conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. As the owner of a bar that bordered on the ghetto and college town, he always had people asking to: A, sell them drugs, and B buy drugs from them. A couple of very persistent ones of this ilk were in his place at the same time one day, and after fending off the usual requests from them, he pointed them at each other. BINGO, it was a sting, they were both LEOs and he was busted and hauled out in cuffs. Now he can't own guns, work in a bar, associate with other felons, etc, etc, etc.

Having known him all his life and knowing that he was entrapped, I would plead his case for a return of his rights.

OTOH, some of the financial conspirators lately, I think should be on chain gangs until they drop, and I'm not sure that doesn't include Martha.

I also know of several people who obtained New York State Pistol Permits when I wouldn't have trusted them with pea shooters, including one who was a frequent arrestee, just never convicted (and should have been.) Political connections, political connections, political connections, in NY that's how things are done.

[nitrogen]

if they are too dangerous to be able to defend themselves, they should be in jail or worse.

That's not how the system works. Criminals are convicted to a sentence based upon what they did; and they're released when they finish it, or earlier if they keep their nose clean.

There is no requirement to repent or even admit that they committed a crime. They can spend their entire sentence contemplating revenge on the people who put them in prison -- and often do.

- Jim

My point is, if they are a danger to society based on their crime, and the evidence provided at their trial, that should be taken into account with their sentence.

Now, I'd be amicable to allowing judges to revoke firearms ownership on a case by case basis if there is sufficient evidence to warrant it, but I think disallowing it blanketly is wrong. Possibly a change to the law that changes it to only violent felonies, too.

YEs, there are plenty of violent felons, but there are also plenty of non-violent ones. As much as I dislike G. Gordon Liddy, I think he should be able to own guns, for example.

[seamusTX]

My point is, if they are a danger to society based on their crime, and the evidence provided at their trial, that should be taken into account with their sentence.

It is supposed to be a factor, but it is not applied consistently.

There is a system in place for restoring the RKBA of reformed felons, but it has not been funded for years (if ever).

I do think felons should be able to get their rights restored, so that they can become productive members of society. As it is now, they might as well be branded.

- Jim

[kauboy]

Now, I'd be amicable to allowing judges to revoke firearms ownership on a case by case basis if there is sufficient evidence to warrant it, but I think disallowing it blanketly is wrong. Possibly a change to the law that changes it to only violent felonies, too.

I don't want my rights resting in the hands of a judge's opinion. Currently, it is the law that revokes certain rights of convicted felons, not the judiciary. That is how it should remain. I agree, it is a slim dividing line, but it is one that should never be broken. However, if the law were ever changed to allow judges to use discretion, that, I would have no problems with since they would be following the spelled out law, and not wontonlly(I made a new word ) creating it.

[Will938]

I always thought that non-violent felons shouldn't be disallowed. So much stupid crap is considered a felony nowadays, its like stuff that might get you on a sex offender list.

Its so stigmatized that everyone assumes felons are bank robbers and people on the sex offender list are child molesters.

I can't say I'd judge either until I found out exactly what crime they committed.

[KBCraig]

It doesn't even take a felony these days, thanks to Lautenberg.

[RPBrown]

One of mt employees that I mentioned in another thread is in a similar situation as jim's brother.
HIS STORY- Riding with a group of guys on a Friday night when he was 17, (he's 36 now) and got pulled over. a couple of the guys had some pot. They arrested all in the car and charged all with felony possesion. My employees family didn't have much money at the time so the had a court appointed lawyer. He strongly suggested they plead out. He got probation but now has a felony on his record for the rest of his life.