A constitutional question - Page 3
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 65

Thread: A constitutional question

  1. It seems to me that those who feel criminals should be allowed to carry guns as per the constitution are forgetting one thing. The Supreme Court Defines what the Constitution means. I agree that ex cons should not be allowed to carry. although there should always be a method for them to regain that right in some cases.

    One example an 18 year old kid who commits an offense, does his time and for 10 years or whatever, walks the straight and narrow.

    For the opposite that dirt bag killed by a CCWL licensee recently in Washington would never get one. He already had over 50 arrests and a ton of convictions

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Puppy
    The Supreme Court Defines what the Constitution means.
    Not really. The Court must abide the Constitution just like the rest of us must. The Court can interpret law to see if it comports to the Constitution, but it cannot - read SHOULD not - "interpret" the Constitution. The Constitution is plainly written and means the same thing to the Court as it does to you and I. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Court given any power over what is written in the Constitution. In fact, the power of the Court is specifically granted, and limited to, cases "arising under this Constitution".(Article III, Section 2). Check it out.

    Woody

    "I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitution Cowboy View Post
    Not really. The Court must abide the Constitution just like the rest of us must. The Court can interpret law to see if it comports to the Constitution, but it cannot - read SHOULD not - "interpret" the Constitution. The Constitution is plainly written and means the same thing to the Court as it does to you and I. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Court given any power over what is written in the Constitution. In fact, the power of the Court is specifically granted, and limited to, cases "arising under this Constitution".(Article III, Section 2). Check it out.

    Woody

    "I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

    What you are saying is what it should be, but Constitution Cowboy is absolutely correct. The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says according to what they want; if it were true that the court is not given power to decide what the Constitution says, then the law that outlaws firearm possession by convicted felons would have been thrown out as quickly as it was passed.
    Last edited by tattedupboy; 10-21-2007 at 09:30 AM.

  5. Here lies Less More killed with a 44 no less no more.With the amount of prisoners converting to islam we could be sighing our own death warrents.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    With the amount of prisoners converting to islam we could be sighing our own death warrents.
    Forgive my morbidity: Everybody dies. Not everybody truly Lives. It's not that you die that matters, it's how you die.

    The prisoners that convert to Islam are not a problem that especially worries me, because they've been convinced to "join". It's the Islamic Fundamentalist Zealot that causes concern. The converted prisoner wants to live as an Islamic, for whatever reason...it's cool, or en vogue...whatever. The ZEALOT wants to DIE for Allah, and that makes him much more dangerous, IMHO. There's only one way to handle this cat, which is by granting his wish, but you have to get the work done before he does it to you.

    In the end, my personal belief is that we're entering a period of enormous danger, and many of us will die as a result. Moreso especially if those that would have us abandon our energies in Iraq have their way...in that case, the festivities will be arriving here in short order. So brace yourselves, arm well, and make your decision, but make it now, so you're prepared when the time comes.

    "The length of your life is not as important as it's depth" . . . Marylin vos Savant
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    What does any of this have to do with the topic of the forum, which is the constitutionality of denying convicted felons the RKBA?

  8. I am in florida and we do not give back the rights to felons unless they petion the governor and are then given back. New York gives them back upon release. Need I say more.

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    What does any of this have to do with the topic of the forum, which is the constitutionality of denying convicted felons the RKBA?
    Nothing really... Woody gave a definitive answer the same day I asked it. :o
    Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

    -Mark Twain

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Constitution Cowboy View Post
    Not really. The Court must abide the Constitution just like the rest of us must. The Court can interpret law to see if it comports to the Constitution, but it cannot - read SHOULD not - "interpret" the Constitution. The Constitution is plainly written and means the same thing to the Court as it does to you and I. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Court given any power over what is written in the Constitution. In fact, the power of the Court is specifically granted, and limited to, cases "arising under this Constitution".(Article III, Section 2). Check it out.

    Woody

    "I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood
    If what you say is true, we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court. Everyone would agree on what the constitution says and no court would be necessary. The fact is that almost every case which comes before the SC gets there because the two opponents involved have a different opinion as to what the constitution says, i.e. they have different interpretations. The court decides which is right; they interpret it to settle the case.

    Additionally one has to decide what the founders intended. They were brilliant men, not darn fools who though it was proper to allow homicidal maniacs to have guns.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    bouncing between CA and NV
    Posts
    186
    A felon can get his/her right to vote and RKBA back.

    They have to prove to a judge that they have rehabilitated and have their record expunged.

    It's hard to do, but it does happen.


    Case in point, my friend's brother had multiple felonies on his recorded.
    When he lived in CA, he was arrested multiple times for being under the influence, drug possession, manufacturing drugs, distributing drugs, possession of stolen property and various firearms offenses relating to drug possession.

    After the last time he got arrested (for possession & intent to distribute), instead of prison time, he was sent to "drug school" and went through a 6 month process of being rehabilitated. After he was done with the program, the judge was so impressed by his rehabilitation that he expunged his record.

    After his rehabilitation and not believing his record was expunged, he walked into a gun store and ended up buying a H&K USP-45 without any problems. Several years later he moved to MO and now has a MO CCW permit along with several dozen firearms.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast