Convicted Felon Tests 2A

[Ektarr]

Thought you'd find this interesting...

NY Sun Article

"The inmate, Damon Lucky, isn't law-abiding. Nor did the gun he was convicted of possessing stay in his home. Still, Lucky decided to "see how far we can ride this pony," his lawyer, Harry Batchelder Jr., said, referring to the federal judiciary's apparent willingness to examine gun control laws critically.

So this month, Mr. Batchelder, asked a federal judge in Brooklyn to answer "yes" to a question that makes many staunch gun owners uneasy: Does the Second Amendment give convicted felons the right to carry handguns?"

[joeren]

This is what I've worried about since the SCOTUS agreed to review Heller. What will happen when/if they uphold the overturn of the DC ban and affirm what everyone on this sight already believes about the 2nd amendment? Without a doubt the courts will be filled with cases from felons convicted on gun charges. A concern is that the justices may be worried about this as well and deliver an opinion that we would not like. I just hope that they do the right thing.

Joe

[Puppy]

I could be wrong but I am not the least concerned. One thing I think, or at least hope, we would all agree with is the right to protect ourselves individually and collectively.

Yes that certainly includes the second amendment but I claim that society also has the right to defend itself from mad dogs, escaped Tigers and gun toting felons by whatever method it takes.

That includes keeping guns out of the hands of people who have proved to do people harm.

Having said that I have no problem with someone who committed a felony, but stays clean for decades being given a chance again.,,, after careful evaluation.

[ecocks]

Unfortunately, my belief is that at the time of framing the 2A they did not anticipate that we would begin catching and imprisoning so many crminals. I stress this is only my belief, but I think they would be a bit surprised at the situation of our corrections and judicial system. Overcrowding was a fact even in those days but they were a bit less concerned with whether the poor, misunderstood criminal had access to a library, TV set, phones, Internet, newspapers, conjugal visits, etc. They seemed to have figured that the prisoners would actually have to still produce something for society - agricultural work, making gravel or something similar. Released criminals were not forbidden to own a gun since anyone that they felt could not be trusted with one was either not released from prison or received the death penalty.

[toreskha]

Lucky's latest arrest came in 2004 after police pulled over the truck he was driving and found a handgun in his waistband.

Prosecutors say Lucky's criminal record dates back to May 1992, when, at age 19, he shot a man. Then, in September of that year, police found him in possession of two handguns and a small amount of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to six years and released after four and a half.

This guy sounds like a thug - a perfect example of why law-abiding people carry guns to begin with.

[NDS]

...did not anticipate that we would begin catching and imprisoning so many crminals...less concerned with whether the poor, misunderstood criminal had access...anyone that they felt could not be trusted with one was either not released from prison or received the death penalty.

And I think that's the whole point about where our society has gone wrong. The Founders didn't think our government would ever micromanage lives the way it is done now. If you truly own yourself, why can't you poison yourself with drugs if you choose? Who cares if you engage in a lifestyle that exposes you to STDs, it's your problem? Truly violent criminals should be locked away or suffer the ultimate penalty. Not so much to punish or deter, but to make society safer from such people.

If someone has served their sentence, they should be accepted back into society as a full member. A 'life sentence' of losing civil rights-forced to register for a list-etc is insane. If they need to be on a list and supervised, they should not be in public. We do not live in a sane society...

[toreskha]

And I think that's the whole point about where our society has gone wrong. The Founders didn't think our government would ever micromanage lives the way it is done now. If you truly own yourself, why can't you poison yourself with drugs if you choose? Who cares if you engage in a lifestyle that exposes you to STDs, it's your problem? Truly violent criminals should be locked away or suffer the ultimate penalty. Not so much to punish or deter, but to make society safer from such people.

If someone has served their sentence, they should be accepted back into society as a full member. A 'life sentence' of losing civil rights-forced to register for a list-etc is insane. If they need to be on a list and supervised, they should not be in public. We do not live in a sane society...

That's true, but for practical purposes, the rest of us should not suffer because our legal system is too lax. We might not be able to lock them away forever, but we definitely don't need them armed (although they often are, anyway).

I'd say we could lift the blanket ban on felons owning guns, and just apply it to those who have committed a crime with guns, or possibly committed a violent crime. They've shown that they're unable to handle a weapon and/or their impulsiveness in a responsible way, and that type of mistake is a forfeiture for life.

[ecocks]

that was the point I wanted to make. I have no problem with a person who has served their sentence having a gun as long as they have really paid their debt and set out to become a responsible citizen. However, as much as I hate to "infringe" the right, I do agree that we need some sort of mechanism to remove the right for those that are a danger to themselves and others. This raises a problem by needing some sort of "test" or "evaluation" by some "competent authority." That means definitions for all those terms and a bureaucracy of some sort to administer them. What do you do with people who are truly mentally incompetent to handle a firearm? Not psychopaths, but ones who simply do not understand the responsibility? We cannot institutionalize everyone who doesn't understand what a gun can do. How can a gun store owner tell someone like that at a glance? And criminals? Probably most of us are in favor of criminals paying their debt after a mistake and then being returned into society but the judicial and corrections systems are incredibly screwed up, the recidivism rate is simply too high to make me comfortable. Everyone has the right to vote and you can lose that with most felony convictions (or at least you used to). Maybe we take it away on conviction and establish a process to get it back? I don't know the answer but it is an interesting question.

[kwo51]

Apply this to driving a car.At what point does the person permit to drive get taken away?He may drive again anyway with permit or not.If caught katty bar the door. Right to drive was given when proven responsable.

[ishi]

This has to be seen from an emotionally detached, purely constitutional perspective. There was a thread on this very subject a few months ago (see A Constitutional Question).

What people really fear about these challenges, is that it exposes the fraud known as the Criminal Justice System. Time and time again, anything that exposes the ineffectiveness and incompetence of our current system of laws will be construed as the actual problem.

God forbid anyone point out the flawed logic of releasing people into society who we know to be dangerous.

What we need is consistent policy - either find a real way to rehabilitate violent offenders or THROW AWAY THE KEY. If we stop putting nonviolent drug offenders in prison we will actually have the room to do this.

Releasing people as half-citizens is not the answer. Putting proved violent offenders in prison forever is. And by the way kwo51, the analogy of the driver's license fails here, because we have no Constitutional right to drive.

The Constitution must come before everything else. Otherwise, we have nothing.