View Full Version : Second Amendment is not a right, but a revocable privilege.
Would you agree? That's the way I see it.
Felons are barred (not sure about non-violent felons), domestic violence leads to permaban and it's a misdemeanor crime, restraining order requires you to "give em up"......
What's next? All other misdemeanor crimes? Including non-violent crimes?
I think we really have to understand that years of new and more restrictive laws have created a reality in which your Second Amendment rights are nothing more but a privilege that can be taken away so easily.
With the way the laws are set up to bar firearms ownership for a group of people, I could see this happening to other amendments too.
Any opinions on the matter?
pilotguyo540
12-27-10, 01:21
Would you agree? That's the way I see it.
Felons are barred (not sure about non-violent felons), domestic violence leads to permaban and it's a misdemeanor crime, restraining order requires you to "give em up"......
What's next? All other misdemeanor crimes? Including non-violent crimes?
I think we really have to understand that years of new and more restrictive laws have created a reality in which your Second Amendment rights are nothing more but a privilege that can be taken away so easily.
With the way the laws are set up to bar firearms ownership for a group of people, I could see this happening to other amendments too.
Any opinions on the matter?
I agree 100%. They have to strip away the second amendment to take away the rest. None of this is an accident or an unintended consequence. It is a deliberate attack on our freedom.
Our rights are only there if we protect them. Government is in a constant state of attempting to revoke your rights as a citizen, and it is only our awareness and action that prevents this. If they had their way we would have no rights at all.
There are no rights that are absolute. Not defending the status quo, but lets be honest with ourselves about that first.
There are no rights that are absolute. Not defending the status quo, but lets be honest with ourselves about that first.
That's part of the problem. Being "honest with ourselves" has got us to where we are. It's not just firearms rights. Freedom of speech, property rights, et al are under assault and they have been for some time. They are under assault because of the "let's be honest with ourselves" mentality.
The Founders didn't see it that way at all. They saw "rights" as immutable.
Does that mean I think a guy fresh out of prison should be able to make his first stop at the local gun store? No, but he has the "right" whether I like it or not. Besides, gun laws have always been "intended" to preclude/limit access of criminals to guns. They've clearly failed.
You either believe in immutable God-granted rights or you believe in privileges bestowed by the government, that can be suspended by fiat at will.
Once a person repays his "debt to society" and completes the terms of his/her release (i.e., probation) I believe he/she should be able to purchase a firearm.
Yeah, "pie in the sky" I'll admit but their lives are worth them defending, too.
The caveat is that some violent felons should not be released (especially if society feels that their actions are so heinous that they could not be trusted with a firearm).
I agree with the last two posters. If you let someone out of prison, they should be allowed the means to defend themselves. Barring a check kiter of the use of arms is stupid. If they're so violence prone that they can't be trusted with a gun, then why did we let them out in the first place?
No free man should ever be barred the use of arms. They're not a full member of society if they are. :(
John_Wayne777
12-27-10, 09:29
The Bill of Rights has never been viewed as absolute, not even by the founding generation.
Applying the test of strict scrutiny (the most restrictive level of judicial review) to the 2nd amendment would still permit prohibiting felons from owning firearms because it is painfully simple to argue that the state has a compelling interest in keeping a guy convicted of murdering someone with a firearm from owning a firearm.
Yes, there are too many felonies out there...but that's because We The People keep demanding tougher penalties for crimes, especially when we are the victim of one. We also reward politicians who are "tough on crime" by voting for them even if they pass stupid laws that allow relatively minor infractions of the social code to become a felony conviction.
That can be addressed without giving gangbangers legal access to firearms.
The notion of a "debt" to society is a false one. Spending a certain amount of time behind bars does not erase the offense committed. The argument is often made that people who present a continuing threat to society shouldn't be out in the first place, but that's simply not reality. Look at those two idiots who murdered a mother and her two daughters (after spending all night raping them) in Connecticut. They had both gone in and out on relatively minor crimes and then they graduated to truly heinous crimes for which there is no adequate punishment. If someone goes into jail for aggravated assault they can't be kept imprisoned indefinitely because they might do something worse if they are let out. That idea flies in the face of our entire notion of rights. They have to be sentenced based on the offense they are convicted of. The government simply deciding to incarcerate someone indefinitely because of what they might do is generally not something most thinking people really want.
The legal system cannot see into the future, but it is reasonable to look at someone's past pattern of behavior as a means of judging whether or not they should be able to go buy an AR-15.
I'm fine with Violent offenders being stripped of their rights, whether it's a misdemeanor or a felony. The non-violent offenders not so much, they do their time, then they should be ok, they didn't hurt anyone physically.
Complication
12-27-10, 09:53
Once a person repays his "debt to society" and completes the terms of his/her release (i.e., probation) I believe he/she should be able to purchase a firearm.
I agree to some extent. But I am curious as to how you feel about sex offenders.
Registered sex offenders must register their address, their neighbors are notified, they can't live within X miles of schools or daycares, must steer clear of "schools, bus stops, gyms, recreation centers, playgrounds, parks, swimming pools, libraries, nursing homes, and places of worship by five hundred to twenty five hundred feet," they must surrender their email addresses, chat/instant message ids, and passwords. And often it is more difficult for them to get a job than a violent felon. All this despite a recidivism rate of 5.3%.
Also, something as benign as urinating in public and get you labeled a sex offender.
ETA: my question isn't whether sex offenders should be able to buy guns but if their right should be restricted after their sentence is complete.
Now, I'm torn between two views:
1) If they pose any danger to society, keep them in prison. Once you're free, you're free. Period.
2) If someone has, for the most part, paid their debt to society, has demonstrated their remorse for their crime, and can be released from overcrowded, expensive-to-run prisons with some restrictions (i.e. parole or other limits on their rights like gun ownership) to begin becoming a productive member of society again, they we should do that--it's in the interests of the prison, the criminal, and society.
2a) Also, going to prison is sufficiently damaging to someone's life (hard to find a job, lost years, maybe joined a gang in prison, etc.) that their re-integration to society is difficult enough that the likelihood of them committing another crime rises significantly above the average person who has not been to prison. And considering that prisons are essentially Colleges for Criminals where you can learn new criminal skills and network and meet new people to commit crimes with in the future, how do you deal with the fact that someone getting out of prison will have greater potential as a criminal than before they were convicted?
kaiservontexas
12-27-10, 10:07
Depends on your point of view. If you are one of those Natural Law types, it appears absolute. If you are into the Common Law, it can seem absolute. If you view through the lense of the Roman/Napoleonic/Continental system, it is a privilege.
I should add: sex offenders were hung. In fact the Warren Court during the Nixion period is the one that changed rape/molestation from a capital offense to what we have now. Also ever notice how cattle rustlers were swung, but the lone criminal who snagged cash out of the register was imprisoned? Our forebearers are not idiots as they saw organized crime as a anti-civ threat. They also did not shove people into cells for walking down the street and shooting people, they swung them too . . . They did not think in terms of rehabilitate and redemption. They thought in terms of defend liberty and society. They also did not invent crime off of vices. Historically there is not even much precedent if you go way back to our beginnings for outlawing vices. Our barbarian ancestors did not care, the Civilizied (Rome, Greece) world did not care, and the Church in the Middle-Ages did not care, but when progressives were born they cared.
Gutshot John
12-27-10, 10:13
The Second Amendment is a right not a privilege but yes even a right can be revoked even under "natural law".
A right presumes you're honoring your half of the social contract (i.e. being a law-abiding citizen). If you break the law than your liberty can be revoked (jail), your property can be seized, you lose the right to vote (speech) and you can lose your right to live (death penalty) since you've demonstrated an inability/unwillingness to conform to society's norms.
The difference is that your rights cannot be taken arbitrarily. You always have the right to "due process" which determines if you've actually violated your end of the social contract. No single individual or petty tyrant should simply decide you're a threat and revoke your rights.
Natural law is not about rights that cannot be revoked. Natural law is that rights exist irrespective of government giving them to you, natural law is just what it says. Natural law does not mean that they are absolute, immutable or unchanging. Natural law presumes that society as a whole can take an individuals rights if he fails in his obligations under a social contract.
Depends on your point of view. If you are one of those Natural Law types, it appears absolute. If you are into the Common Law, it can seem absolute. If you view through the lense of the Roman/Napoleonic/Continental system, it is a privilege.
Outstanding post!
1. Natural Law = rights given to each human by his Creator.
2. Positivism = man has no rights until and unless they are granted to him by the government.
(Hint: Progressives and Commies like #2 above.)
Even within the framework of natural law a person can temporarily or permanently forfeit a right due to his behavior (i.e., commission of crimes).
Example: Bad guy torture-murders a person. If the state chooses to apply the death penalty after a public jury trial and all due process of the law requirements are met, then the bad guy can be legally determined to have forfeited his right to life.
Non-violent offenders, which would include people like Brian Aitken, should retain their 2A rights.
Personally I think if someone is too dangerous to have a gun than they should remain in prison, but I agree with JW that it's a very simple argument to make regarding violent felons no longer in prison.
Applying the test of strict scrutiny (the most restrictive level of judicial review) to the 2nd amendment would still permit prohibiting felons from owning firearms because it is painfully simple to argue that the state has a compelling interest in keeping a guy convicted of murdering someone with a firearm from owning a firearm.
This example is waaaaay too broad, although it is the law that the courts presently follow. A CFO may commit accounting errors which make him a felon under various statutes, including under the fairly recent Sarbanes-Oxley act.
But it is difficult to argue that such accountant, after serving his term, would present a violent crime danger to anyone as he has never been a violent crime danger in the past. Should he be prevented from owning and carrying a firearm? I say NO. He forfeited his right to freedom for a period of time due to his accounting crime. But there is no logical argument that he has somehow forfeited the rest of his rights as articulated in the Bill of Rights. By committing an accounting crime, has he forfeited his right to religious freedom? I don't think so.
kaiservontexas
12-27-10, 11:03
Gutshot, no agrument, which is why I said appears. And agree in due process. I should have mentioned due process because that is extremely important.
From a realist point of view, technically all things are a privilege in the eyes of a governing body. If a government can take away your children, your property, your freedom, and your very life, then nothing is actually a "right".
There are only contractual agreements in which one party agrees to do "A", and another party agrees to do "B". In this case, citizens agree to be good citizens, and the government agrees not to overreach its authority. This is a chaotic agreement as both sides desire to do that which they have agreed not to do.
Really though, politicians have little power. Their power is derived from the opinions of the masses. The masses are easily manipulated, and often react with emotion rather than educated logic. This is why our fore fathers were so adamant about the US being a representative republic, and not a democracy which is run by the masses.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." -Julius Caesar
Gutshot John
12-27-10, 11:59
There should be a distinction between your constitutional rights and natural rights.
You can have your 2a rights revoked if you've been subjected to due process but that presumes that it applies exclusively to firearms.
You will ALWAYS (even if you're a felon) have the natural right to defend your life.
You just won't be able to do it with a gun.
This example is waaaaay too broad, although it is the law that the courts presently follow. A CFO may commit accounting errors which make him a felon under various statutes, including under the fairly recent Sarbanes-Oxley act.
But it is difficult to argue that such accountant, after serving his term, would present a violent crime danger to anyone as he has never been a violent crime danger in the past. Should he be prevented from owning and carrying a firearm? I say NO. He forfeited his right to freedom for a period of time due to his accounting crime. But there is no logical argument that he has somehow forfeited the rest of his rights as articulated in the Bill of Rights. By committing an accounting crime, has he forfeited his right to religious freedom? I don't think so.
Agreed, it's ridiculous. If you streak across a baseball field naked (one of THE things to do when I was younger), you're a sex offender and now barred from firearms permanently. If you accidentally add or subtract a number incorrectly in your financial records, you can be tried and convicted as a felon - immediate loss of gun rights.
...Meanwhile, the gangbanger downtown who helped kill 3 people at the age of 16 can still own a gun because he was a "misguided minority who was the victim of racism" and went through some stupid juvenile inner-city program.
I think we need to reform the gun laws as they pertain to felonies.
Here's my plan:
1) Remove the penalty of loss of gun ownership for all existing categories of people (felons, sex offenders, those with "mental issues," etc).
2) Add law: anyone who uses a weapon against another person in any crime loses 2a rights
3) Add law: anyone who commits a physical sexual crime against another person (rape, incest, etc - NOT public indecency or similar, such as streaking) loses 2a rights
4) Add law: make it crime to pass any law that bars any other classification or group of people from owning firearms.
And that's it. People should only lose their right to something when they abuse that right, not because someone thinks they should lose it do to something else completely unrelated (or because they "might" do something, such as with people who have undergone mental therapy).
There is some interesting research into collateral consequences being in general pretty negative in effect, which is what various types of people "losing" their gun (and other, voting, jury, etc.) rights is. We are still coming to terms with the concept of reliable records that people can't move away from and start over and the effect that has on society. The ABA and some other groups are pushing for laws to enact better expungement/right restoration procedures at the State and Federal levels and have them work in harmony better.
http://new.abanet.org/sections/criminaljustice/CR206500/Pages/default.aspx?com=CR206500
Here is a question for you 2a absolutists:
Should convicted prisoners be allowed to keep guns with them while they are in prison?
pilotguyo540
12-28-10, 00:05
Here is a question for you 2a absolutists:
Should convicted prisoners be allowed to keep guns with them while they are in prison?
That is the dumbest question fielded in a long time. The constitution states "without due process of law"
Try again.
That is the dumbest question fielded in a long time. The constitution states "without due process of law"
Try again.
Perhaps before you go around calling people stupid, you look up the definition of absolute and work on reading comprehension skills: If you admit that the government can deprive you of your rights via due process of law, then you are not an absolutist and the question is not applicable to you.
1. Natural Law = rights given to each human by his Creator.
2. Positivism = man has no rights until and unless they are granted to him by the government.
(Hint: Progressives and Commies like #2 above.)
Even within the framework of natural law a person can temporarily or permanently forfeit a right due to his behavior (i.e., commission of crimes).
Example: Bad guy torture-murders a person. If the state chooses to apply the death penalty after a public jury trial and all due process of the law requirements are met, then the bad guy can be legally determined to have forfeited his right to life.
Option 3. We have rights because we create legal structures and systems of government that uphold our claims. If we fail to retain them as a matter of law we may attempt to enforce our claims by force. If that fails, we still have a claim but certainly it doesn't amount to anything.
Perhaps before you go around calling people stupid, you look up the definition of absolute and work on reading comprehension skills: If you admit that the government can deprive you of your rights via due process of law, then you are not an absolutist and the question is not applicable to you.
The Founders did accept a due process foundation for removal of rights, but the only permanent removal was death. Upon release you are no longer a ward of the state and therefore should have your rights restored. You can own property and you have freedom of speech upon release (but notably not while incarcerated).
It's worth noting, a lot of you (in this thread) who are "revocable privilege" folks incorrectly cite voting. Voting isn't a right. It is actually a privilege.
pilotguyo540
12-28-10, 05:17
Perhaps before you go around calling people stupid, you look up the definition of absolute and work on reading comprehension skills: If you admit that the government can deprive you of your rights via due process of law, then you are not an absolutist and the question is not applicable to you.
I wasn't calling you stupid, I was calling your question stupid. Prison is for those who can not live by the rule of law. Their freedoms are revoked by due process of the law.
I can still be a 2A absolutist and not contradict myself because the mention of due process is laid out in the same document that birthed the second amendment. You can take the second amendment to an absolute and have a functional society. It works every time.
So yes, your stupid question still applies. If you think this question is still worthy of debate, than I shall question your intellect.
Redmanfms is correct. The founding fathers never wanted voting to be a right. We were founded as a republic NOT a democracy. Democracy is mob rule at the end of the day. They never wanted people to vote themselves a raise.
Would you agree? That's the way I see it.
Felons are barred (not sure about non-violent felons), domestic violence leads to permaban and it's a misdemeanor crime, restraining order requires you to "give em up"......
What's next? All other misdemeanor crimes? Including non-violent crimes?
I think we really have to understand that years of new and more restrictive laws have created a reality in which your Second Amendment rights are nothing more but a privilege that can be taken away so easily.
With the way the laws are set up to bar firearms ownership for a group of people, I could see this happening to other amendments too.
Any opinions on the matter?
some previous discussion on the matter. FWIW.
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33928
Once a person repays his "debt to society" and completes the terms of his/her release (i.e., probation) I believe he/she should be able to purchase a firearm.
Yeah, "pie in the sky" I'll admit but their lives are worth them defending, too.
The caveat is that some violent felons should not be released (especially if society feels that their actions are so heinous that they could not be trusted with a firearm).
Problem with this is that many who are sentenced to prison even on lesser charges often times come out of prison educated as hardened violent and even more dangerous criminals.
Everyone has heard the stories of the repeat offender who went to prison only to come out and commit worse crimes...It's only a small percent of violent felons that are ever actually rehabilitated and go on to become productive citizens.
And I say this having a brother who has spent the last 25 years of his life in the Missouri Peneteniary System.
Would I want him to have the ability to buy and own weapons...at this point I have to say No.
Gutshot John
12-28-10, 12:18
It's worth noting, a lot of you (in this thread) who are "revocable privilege" folks incorrectly cite voting. Voting isn't a right. It is actually a privilege.
That's not really correct either, properly speaking it's both.
The Constitution explicitly refers to voting as a "right" but if you're talking about what the perception of suffrage at the time of the founding fathers, voting amongst those to whom it was given it is usually referred to as an obligation.
That said in the modern context voting is a form of speech and protected under the first amendment but since not everyone can vote, it is not absolute anymore than other rights are absolute.
These rights were enumerated for your benefit and are meant to provide you immunity from prosecution for exercising them.
You don't really have freedom of speech either, at least not in your personal lives. A person can put a no-contact order on you at any time, for any reason, and you will be jailed for speaking or expressing yourself. Your possessions can be taken away from you without trial by jury. Your pension, social security and wages can all be taken away from you without the benefit of any due process. You can't even utter in a court of law that you should not be prosecuted because the law is illegal according to the constitution. You can't tell the jury that they do not have to convict you on laws they believe are unjust or unconstitutional, if you do the Judge will immediately declare a mistrial, banish you from the courtroom, bar any future attorneys from uttering those words under threat of contempt of court.
Civilization hasn't become all that civil as of late.
The_War_Wagon
12-28-10, 20:13
Really though, politicians have little power. Their power is derived from the opinions of the masses. The masses are easily manipulated, and often react with emotion rather than educated logic. This is why our fore fathers were so adamant about the US being a representative republic, and not a democracy which is run by the masses.
And this is why we ought to reconsider allowing NON-land (property) owners, the right to vote!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
If you're on the gummint dole, you DON'T get to vote yourself some MORE of it! :mad:
Our rights are only there if we protect them. Government is in a constant state of attempting to revoke your rights as a citizen, and it is only our awareness and action that prevents this. If they had their way we would have no rights at all.
+1
A government, no matter how well it is organized, by it's very nature will always move to usurp the liberties of it's citizens if for no other reason than the benign belief that government knows best.
Btw I read the title of this post and thought Obama finally passed a law and it was lock an load time.
:laugh::laugh:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.