A constitutional question

[ishi]

There's something I've been thinking about as a result of recent posts...

We don't lose our freedom of speech, or religion, right to a fair trial, right to be secure in our homes or persons, etc when we are convicted of a felony. Why then do we lose our right to bear arms?

To someone who believes that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, this question isn't even worth asking. But what about those who believe it is an individual right?

I'm asking this as a constitutional question, not as a utilitarian question. Utilitarian-wise, it's very clear why this might be desired. Whether this is constitutionally justifiable is my question. This is an open question, but particularly I'd like to hear Woody's opinion on this.

[ronwill]

I'm one that believes if your convicted of a violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) you have shown the inability to use the RKBA responsibly. Even the founding fathers felt this way as evidenced by Samual Adams when he stated: "That the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press....or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms....".

[ishi]

I'm one that believes if your convicted of a violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) you have shown the inability to use the RKBA responsibly. Even the founding fathers felt this way as evidenced by Samual Adams when he stated: "That the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press....or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms....".

Good point ronwill, that quote from Samuel Adams is a pretty good statement of their intent. I'd like to know where that intent was codified in the constitution itself though.

[ronwill]

Ishi, while I can find no references in the Constitution for this action, it has been a longstanding and popular custom. The following article touches on that and some more current actions. Since you've tweaked my interest I'm going to continue research on the question.

http://www.io.com/~velte/po-crit.htm

[Constitution Cowboy]

We don't lose our freedom of speech, or religion, right to a fair trial, right to be secure in our homes or persons, etc when we are convicted of a felony. Why then do we lose our right to bear arms?

It's a simple answer: Congress and some of the several state legislatures have taken it upon themselves to infringe upon the right for no other justification than those utilitarian reasons you do not wish to discuss(and quite frankly, neither do I at this point). It is unconstitutional for anyone in government to pass law or enforce law that infringes upon anyone's right to keep and bear arms. There is no power granted to Congress to pass such a law anywhere in the Constitution. All others are forbidden to infringe upon the right by the Second Amendment.

A person may be kept from his arms by being imprisoned in the custody of the state or the Union. Once freed, though, such a person is no different than any law abiding person regarding any inalienable right.

This will blow your mind: The Union only has the power to punish those who counterfeit money; commit piracy and felonies on the high seas and offenses against the laws of nations; those in the armed services; and those convicted of treason. In all other cases, per the Constitution, a person can be compelled to comply with the law, but not imprisoned for breaking such other federal law. You can be forced to pay the taxes you owe to Uncle Sam, but per the Constitution, Uncle Sam cannot lock you up for not paying your taxes.

Punishment for most crimes is in the purview of the several states.

What we have, what we suffer, is government - or rather those in government - out of control. These people have slipped the bounds of the Constitution. I'll bet you that you could count on one hand all the people in power in Congress and in the Oval Office who fully understand the Constitution and abide it. I'll grant there may be as many as four on the Supreme Court who fully understand, and will abide, the Constitution.

I do believe that will give you a small picture of what we are up against.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

[Ektarr]

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it.

These words should be carved in granite somewhere!

So, Woody . . . What would be the modern equivalent of the Boston tea party?

[Constitution Cowboy]

These words should be carved in granite somewhere!

I know just where, too! The steps to the UN building, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the steps to the White House.

Woody

[Constitution Cowboy]

So, Woody . . . What would be the modern equivalent of the Boston tea party?

Good question. I don't have an answer, though! It would be some form of civil disobedience like the tea party, though.

Woody

[Sgt. SIG]

I think I would have to say that an armed people cannot be tyrannized, they will not be easily dominated and they can oppose their government should their government try to take their freedom away!

Unfortunately, the reality is, the sheep that comprise the majority in this nation will gladly give up their rights, their freedoms and will hurry to give them to the man who can make all their fears go away. His platform will be world peace and safety! Watch out... he's coming!

[Dakotaranger]

I think the theory is a felon proves they are incapible of being good citizens. Thus, they aren't allowed to vote, have to obey certain rules after they are released from their sentence, can't congragate with other ex-cons, and aren't allowed to own firearms.

In effect, a person looses their citizenship by becoming a felon.