The government cannot abridge constitutionally protected rights simply to make a symbolic point or because it feels that something must be done.
According to the authors, much of not all of the proposed gun control legislation will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
I'm a huge 2nd Amendment supporter, but just to play devil's advocate: Why can't convicted felons own firearms? The authors of the 2nd Amendment never mentioned this language.
Because convicted felons swung on the end of a rope.
"If a man speaks on a dessert island, and his wife is not there to hear him, is he still wrong?"
Is there anything in the US Constitution that even mentions Violations, Misdemeanors or felonies?
These are State laws and thus governed by each state. They states make the laws regarding convicted felons.
Some states make it difficult for law abiding citizens to own weapons. New York will impose a jail term for possessing a pistol without a license.
New York city will impose a jail sentence for possessing a long gun without a license.
Go one state over to New Hampshire and the laws are very lax concerning weapons.
Doc ***** Tobacco is a filthy weed, I like it...
SNOB Member 1033 1/3
As the article notes, gun control laws are also being challenged and struck down at the state and city level as well.
It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be a 'law of the land' on anything these days so to speak. Take medical marijuana, for example, where states are just outright defying federal law.
In legal terms, it seems gun control laws are going to be a muddy mess that will be contested in all kinds of ways in the coming years.
Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Also, there are Federal background checks, Doc, that restrict felons from purchasing firearms. And in that regard, it's not regulated state by state.
These will be very interesting proceedings, indeed.
Why should felons be deprived of the right to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, their person, or hunt with firearms?
Seems contradictory, especially when it's the government who defines a felony.
Anybody have access to Lexis Nexis? I would have to believe that someone, somewhere, at some time offered a legal challenge to this. After all, if our penal system is truly about rehabilitation, then there is no need to deny even violent offenders of firearms. Theoretically, upon completion of their sentence and/or a period of supervised release, they would be reformed characters. I'm sure if it was challenged it was by someone relatively batcrap crazy, but who knows.
I'm sure it has as well, I just don't have the answer.
Really? You guys must use different dictionaries to those of us who proclaim to speak English English.
Convicted felons "swung on the end of a rope" would considerably slow down the overpopulation epidemic worldwide! And especially in Oz, where they seem to breed like rabbits.
kmd was remarking how convicted felons, back when our constitution was being created, were usually hanged.
And, dude, could you explain your English English and WTF you are talking about?
Was not Oz formed as a penal colony of British felons? I'm not talking about the indigenous population, just the criminal element from Great Britain, i.e., your ancestry?
The cowboys out here decided to push HB2291. An awesome idea with one teenie tiny little flaw.
...actually, all of this is a lie...