So are you akin to AOC who believes the US Supreme Court should have no power? Or are you and AOC unaware of how the US Constitution grants power to the US Supreme Court?
If an American citizen is convicted of a felony and served his time and released back into society he has the Constitutional 2nd Amendment Right to be armed just as any other American citizen.
Not true in many states, and the felonies in question and other factors have to factor in . You hold up a store at gunpoint and do your time for the armed robbery, that right should be considered as a privilege, not just assumed because time was served. Things like chances of reoffending also need to factored in. I'm saying this also as a convicted felon who's rights were forfeited by my choices decades ago. It's bullshit to miss it for damage done to an apartment and the felony only being because of the damage amount, but that is the system we have and I accept that . But my paper work also specifically said firearms.... So I got good with everything else..
@@tigerm08the second amendment is not infinite. There are very good reasons to deny felons firearms. And there are very good reasons to track who owns machine guns and not allow any new ones to be made and sold to the public.
The 2A is not open to Executive, Congressional or Judicial review based on 'shall not be infringed.' The Founder's intent was make quite clear in their writings. Government is not permitted to infringe upon the 2A in any way, shape or form.
Any FREE man is NEVER to be debarred the right to bear arms. If someone is too violent to own a gun then they must be convicted in a court of law and the jail sentence imposed IS the method of barring violent criminals from owning firearms. There cannot be a law that punishes an individual AFTER they have paid their entire debt to society.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 from the time that they used to "hang felons" to now...the definition of a felon has BROADLY expanded. The statute itself is not even "Felon Not to Possess" anymore. It's "Prohibited Person's Not to Possess" which includes a multitude of categories that are NOT felons. So how do you explain the government's broad overreach on that? You're vouching for the government broadly hanging felons and saying that they have the power to do so while not addressing how they have usurped power to unconstitutionally bar categories of people (including felons) from bearing arms.
@@truone637Iost mine due to a non violent , non drug charge ( criminal mischief, damage over 1k) thus a felony... No votes, no pewpews..thanks to the republican leadership of Florida
Basically the 2nd amendment should have just been “Under no circumstances aside from during incarceration shall a person be denied the ability to own and carry any weapon” and left at that.
@seanwilliams2781 You're correct however I think people need to remember and understand that when we say "felons shouldn't be stripped of their rights" that we don't mean people currently in prison because I don't how or why they'd give you a weapon while in there but they should be able to have their rights back (or active or some interpretation once they have paid their debt back to society.
You know I believe OBAMA BIDEN BEHIND SCHOOL SHOOTINGS. LOOK AT THE Pattern across the country they hit every part. To get gun control.no better way to get gun control then to kill people children. Right.they don't give a uck. Texas the Cia brainwash mental Teen last words over dead teachers phone was. I only did what they told me to do.wtf? No job no money but armed with around $10.000 in guns ammo. You think? Huh. Proof what I say.
@@Nono-pd4cnOh? Do you think you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Because a felon in possession of a firearm can easily take that away. Only a felon or an idiot would argue for criminals to have 2nd Amendment rights.
Yes and anyone inside the United States of America boarders. It's why you have a reference to the people and references to the citizens. So all citizens are the people but not all people are citizens.
It's been said there is a difference between being a citizen and one of the people. Being a citizen is a privilege and being one of the people is a sovereign right.
The courts have no legal lawful authority or jurisdiction to take away any American citizens constitutionally protected rights (liberties). The court only has authority to suspend second amendment rights only when a citizen is incarcerated in jail or prison,all rights are inalienable rights they should by law constitutionally be immediately restored upon release.
@@patillo56 I don't think you understand rights; they are not given or taken away by mankind - they are God given. The judges oath includes the phrase: So help me God. As a quick websearch shows GotQuestions explains: ""The essential purpose of saying “so help me God” is to express sincerity and emphasize greater vigilance: “I mean what I am saying, my testimony is true, and I will do everything I can with God’s help to perform my duty with the utmost diligence and integrity.” Summoning the Lord’s help acknowledges God’s existence as the supreme authority and invokes His punishment if an oath is broken. "" This creates a dilemma for judges because by abrogating God given rights they have actually gone against Gods will - the judge acts as if he or she is above God - and that cannot happen without the judges oath being broken, both his oath to God and his oath as a judge: """I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”"" By breaking these oaths the judge has incurred the Wrath of God, ” Summoning the Lord’s help acknowledges God’s existence as the supreme authority and INVOKES His PUNISHMENT if an oath is broken. "" Now, under 18 USC 242 it explains what that really means: """Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for ANY term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to DEATH."""
There are many people who have been convicted of felonies that the felony is not a serious act and didn't harm anyone, didn't make anyone a victim, didn't take any property from anyone, didn't threaten anyone in any way. I got arrested for possession of less than one gram of a drug that is considered a felony. I was on private property and not breaking any laws, parked in my vehicle on a private driveway and a L.E.O. drove by me and made a u turn and pulled onto the the private property driveway to do some fishing. Asked me if I was okay, I said yes. He asked for my license and registration. Now, I'm in a brand new 4x4 pick up truck, well dressed, had license and registration and insurance, which are also not necessary according to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. A person shall be able to travel on any road or highway with their personal property without being impeded or have a toll or be subject to stop unless they've broken a law that then requires a traffic stop. Even then the operator does not need to have a license or registration or insurance. Back to my story. So the officer runs my ID etc... and then decides he's gonna tell me my eyes are red and have I been doing any drinking or drugs. I said no but I have been awake since 4:15 am that morning for work and it is now almost 8pm and I just had dinner and was about to make my 30 minute drive home and I'm tired. He has me get out of the car and gives me a field sobriety test. At that time another officer pulls up and proceeds to search my truck. Finds the small amount of drugs and they arrest me. I then a convicted felon. Never been arrested before. I was 32 yrs old. Union electrician, and now I am on probation for two years have to go to drug classes and my rights to own a firearm has been taken and my right to vote has been taken. Ten years later I got my voting rights back but still can't ever legally own a firearm or have one in my home even if it is my wife's or if it is a friend's. If I am in a vehicle with someone and they have a firearm I go to jail. That's absolutley ridiculous. I did what I needed to do as the court sentenced me with, I satisfied all fines and obligations etc... no more trouble and yet I'm not allowed to defend myself my family, my property, or go hunting for food or just shoot at targets on private or public property. I can go into a gun range and rent one of their firearms and buy ammunition to use right there that day, to shoot targets but that is it. That is not reason enough to have my rights to own a firearm taken for the rest of my life. Why should I be victim or my loved ones or a neighbor or a shop clerk be victims because some violent criminal has a firearm and is using it or threatening to use it and I can't help anyone or stop this criminal because I had a small personal amount of a drug someone decided to make illegal so they can profit from convicting people for choosing to put something in my body? Who are they to tell anyone what you can eat drink smoke or whatever you want to yourself? There was no victim until the cops overstepped their own oath to protect and uphold the Constitution and the rights of the people and wanted to play pirate and stop my vessel and board my ship illegally in search of profits and prisoners with no probable cause or need for suspicion, making me the victim of their tyranny. So does that sound like a just judicial and law enforcement system? They are just enforcing the laws that were written by a man who has no authority over any other man to write laws that he created out of thin air to gain power and profit. I'm allowed to vote again, why can't I own a firearm?
Sue all officials involved in a federal court under title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 section 5, title 18 U.S.C. section 1918. 42 1983,1985, they have no legal immunity from being sued for civil rights violations. Get your rights restored and some compensation for their treasonous traitorous crimes.
The funny thing is what most officials don't comprehend and realize all drugs are constitutionally legal, Congress never made a constitutional amendment outlawing drugs therefore technically legally all drug laws are illegal unconstitutional laws. The government has been illegally unconstitutionally enforcing them for the past 80 or so years.
@@dragonf1092 --- That is some excellent information you've suggested. I didn't know that civil suits can be used to bring charges against those who have Qualified Immunity. Very interesting. Thanks
Thank you! I committed a robbery 12 years ago and was a drug addict. It was labeled as a non dangerous felony though..As bad as it sounds I’m glad it happened because it changed my life. I served my time and have not been in trouble since. I own a house, I have an amazing job. I’m am archery hunter and there are mountain lions and bears where I hunt and when I hunt in southern Arizona I run into a bunch of illegal immigrants crossing the border. I wish I could carry a sidearm when I hunted for my protection. I made a mistake, i paid my dues and pride myself on being a kind and honest person now. I wish society can see me the same as I see myself now and not see me for the one mistake I made 12 years ago.
I have a violent felony from years ago, and I'll tell ya: GOOD LUCK with getting people to think this way in many sectors of society. But I appreciate the sentiment from you, genuinely.
As the Construction recognizes one class of citizen , once a person has paid their debt to society all rights need to be restored , unless for some reason the person has waived their rights .
All rights are inalienable/unalienable rights. They cannot legally be waved away. Inalienable/unalienable Cannot be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
not sure why we ever allowed these tyrants to make legislation over i us at all!very upsetting.a person is deemed fit to be in society even woth a violent felony.then has ten plus years of bieng a good citizen no further trouble.yet has to continue paying beyond for thier life sounds a but like cruel and unusual punishment to me.....very disheartening in my own country.not sure why no one can see this this way.thier should be some kind of way out of this extrajudicial bs!!!my point is.....if the parole board decided the felon was fit and able to be back in society.abd that person hasnt reoffended after point five years ten years then they should be able to regain thier second amendent.unalienable seems pretty clear.shall not infringe also comes to mind.the citizens have been tread upon by these politicians and whoever treasonous thought up these unconstitutional legislations.its tantamount to double joepardy really.or extrajudicial punishment.an individual should be given thier god given right and be free from any other individuals ideas over this!who are they to say anything since a person paid thier societal debt!!?if the person was released they were released.why should that person have to pay a lifetime?beyond the scope of the judgment?
At the time of the felons conviction, one aspect of paying "your debt to society" was a lifetime ban on owning guns. So until that "commitment" is fullfed, you still own that debt.
All constitutionally protected rights (liberties) are inalienable/unalienable rights. Inalienable/unalienable Cannot be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
They're only inaliable to whom the Constitution makes it clear for to be inaliable. Remember, the Fathers made it clear who "We the People" is at the time. "We the People" means American born, to an American father, White, Law abiding, Protestant males. Anyone who does not fit this definition is thus not protected by neither the 1st nor 2nd, nor any amendments. Women, Non Whites (freed or slaves), Non Christians (although other sects that weren't Protestant were usually excluded), basically anyone that passes as "Un-American" (whatever that is) can have their rights infringed upon. That definition of course, always changed with time to the point the consensus now is any person born in America is entitled the right to own a gun, though the text doesn't explicitly say that. So now we are stuck in a very peculiar situation. The Constitution simultaneously protects a large group of individuals, but if we're going by the Fathers' raw definition as it in text, it also excludes a significant portion. So the Constitution simultaneously favors and abhors gun control.
To a degree I can accept the restriction of no buying or possessing a firearm while someone is on probation or parole. I always feel though what irritates me is the lifetime ban of it. I've seen people change their ways and put a long time between their troubled past and their life that they have rebuilt being a productive member of society. To tell that person that they for the rest of their lives will not be able to own a firearm to help defend themselves, their home or their family sounds excessive, cruel and unjust.
Cruel and unusual punishment i would say. I have no ability to defend myself or my family against an armed intruder. Harsh language and dirty looks isn't going to help me protect my home. And as a former felon, don't count on law enforcement to rescue you.
Yeah man. The law smells like sh*t. This isnt the only unconstitutional law either. Did you know taxing non-business owners is also technically unconstitutional?
@@SpinDoc420 Seriously are you some kind of tool or what? Your just gonna talk sh*t about the sources and act like you know what your talking about. The people werent always taxed. It was corperations that payed taxes.
When the Constitution was written they never meant for it to picked apart piece by piece, word by word! The ATF wants to take one little word and tear it apart and change the Constitution! We either have a Constitution or we don't! Which is it?
Exactly. We are not allowed to have a gun. But are expected to pay taxes like the people that that are. One can pay money to get those rights back. So who are we paying the funds to? And why does it cost money to get a right given to you in 1776? Ridiculous excuse of the Government having to much power. Power that the common man allowed them to possess.
Thank you for shedding light on this subject that no one wants to touch. Not all ex felones are violent or sexual offenders and thanks to the case of Range V Garland and it’s currant ruling, this subject is moving in the right direction, finally.
I truly believe it doesn’t matter whether it’s a violent or sex offense. Once the prison term is completed then they should be able to get all their rights back. If that’s the case then they should never be released back into society if all their rights are not protected and restored.
@@DP-fg8bxNot that I'm a violent sex offender, but I would go as far as to say that if felons are no longer considered to be the people, then they are no longer subject to the laws that govern the people.
The constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land doesn't give Congress, states, federal,local governments,courts authority to deny any American citizen their rights to possess or carry any weapons (ARMS) whatsoever.
100% agree, but until a jury has the courage to nullify unjust laws or a manipulation in the US Constitution then the police and the lower and higher courts will continue to do business as illegally and unjust and abusive as they have been. People often don't think about it but if a felon cannot be in possession of a gun than they also cannot be around a gun or a similar protection device... So since felony convictions are not private matters but public it would not be hard to see who could be a potential victim... Not just a felon but the whole house.
It does, because the COnstitution also determines who is the "People" Remember, at one point the "People" only applied to White, Christian, law abiding Males, born in America to an American parent as the definition of American. Women, Indians, Blacks (either slaves or free), Non Christians (which ironically enough, could also exclude Catholics), the mentally ill and Felons were all excluded the right of protection by the 2A. And since then, that definition of "We the People" is still technically correct, as is the newer interpretation that any free person born in the US is allowed to have guns, regardless of sex, gender and race. So you're stuck in a peculiar situation. Where the Constitution advocates gun control for a specific part of society, but exempts another, while also applying it to everyone. It's an example of a Law that didn't change with the times.
@@peixeserra9116 felons were never deprived of their constitutionally protected second amendment rights untill 1934 when Traitors in Congress illegally passed the NFA in violation of article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment, and the 14th amendment section 1, every individual american citizen who is natural born or naturalized is the people.
@@peixeserra9116 article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Amendment 14 section 1 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states Second amendment THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (The second amendment is the privilege, immunity (right)of each and every individual american citizen in the united states of America). All Congressmen, senators, judges including supreme Court justices, governor's,mayor's,city council member,law enforcement officers are all state officials and therefore prohibited under the 14th amendment section 1 (no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states)and 10th amendment (nor prohibited to the states) from passing or enforcing any form of gun control laws whatsoever. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 makes background checks, licenses, permits,gun free zones,red flag laws illegal. Second amendment makes all gun control laws and enforcement of said laws illegal (shall not be Infringed). 14th amendment section 1 makes passing and enforcing them illegal.
The question is a no brainer. All prior felons remain Citizens and all Citizens have the Right to defend themselves and their families. Takins the most effective means of defense not only deprives them of that Right, it deprives their families of it too. Secondly, any law which establishes a class of Citizen and then denies that class of a Right based on being a mamber of that class is by definition a Bill of Attainder. Third, a lifetime ban on the means of effective defense also is an imposition of Cruel and unusual punishment. Fourth, the Constitution does not give any State nor the Federal government the power to restrict a Citizen's Rights ant any law that does also violates the 10th Amendment. Finally, the laws fail the Bruen test as there was never an analogous law at the founding that restricted a Citizen's 2A Rights. Indeed, the 1792 Militia Act mandated that all able bodied men possess a firearm and sufficient ammunition for militia duty. Additionally, prior to the 1968 GCA, many states mandated returning a releasing prisoner's guns ao provide him/her one
Well stated. If an individual is too dangerous for society they should be in jail. If they're not a dangerous unpredictable being..they should have their rights. Simple. These overgrown toddlers in power have made the decision that an individual who isn't a danger to society and doesn't need to be incarcerated still can't have rights. That's nuckin futz.
I had non violent drug sales felonies in Illinois. Over 40 yrs ago. Did under a year for the crimes. Never had another charge. Still have no gun rights to protect myself and my family.
I don’t know why everyone is complaining about not being able to have a firearm I don’t understand how people can allow an illegal law to govern them and would just lay down and accept the fact that they have no rights if you read the constitution it clearly states that these rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON I have owned and carried a firearm since I was 18 and I also have felony convictions and I never kept it a secret from anyone I stood my ground and told the only person who informed me to have someone hold my firearm until I was discharged from probation that I would be standing by my 2nd amendment rights and I would only surrender my firearm in one manner and that would be fist the bullets and then over my dead body they could take it away from me and that subject was never brought back up a law that is illegal is not enforceable and this is exactly what the 2nd amendment written for to protect ourselves and our rights and nobody should just lay down and accept that another person should deny you your right’s without a right that’s why I made it perfectly clear that nobody will be disarming me without a fight and if we all would stand up like our founding fathers have instructed us to do we wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now so go get your firearms and don’t let the government dictate what rights you are allowed to have you have your rights it’s your job to protect your rights and to defend your constitution from a tyrannical government
Us supreme Court "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment... In legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land (the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnet V. Vallier, 16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193(1908); Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886).
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law" True, but the question is whether you are prepared to deal with the consequences. Temporarily allowing infringment of your right by an unconstitutional law and then using civil process to remove that infringment is much better (IMO) than not allowing any infringment of your right and then you being put through the criminal process instead.
courts may not be bound to enforce it; but just watch them enforce it anyway as they have done for decades. having said that.....your comment is very correct and our courts are not.
@@dragonf1092 Being civil when being wronged is part of the price to be paid for a free and civilized society. The Rule of Law is not perfect but it is light years ahead of the Law of the Jungle.
I went to prison for DWI and I was 19 I'm 50 now and on my release in 03 have not even had a ticket. Why do I get all my rights back except guns? My crime had nothing to do with guns.
The term felony was narrowly and well defined at the time of the founding. Over the many decades, the state legislatures have vastly expanded the numerous crimes under that term, they're literally the arbitrators of who's allowed to have rights and who doesn't. How can someone who was convicted of a victimless crime or crimes that wasn't violent in nature or involving anyone else or even a firearm? The entire class of laws under the term felon need to be reviewed and reclassified or done away with all together. Plus the group of people who fall under the felon category, are legally allowed to be discriminated against in today's society! It's fucking nonsense that the laws can strip people of their rights when they weren't hurting anyone or crimes that didn't even have a victim or anyone but the individual involved
No, once someone has paid their debt to society for their crime. They should have all of their God Given Rights restored! If they paid their debt in full! , they should not have to report their past to employers. As it is now they are often unable to find employment and as a result return to crime.
This is by design to keep the systems in place. - Either we have "Just Laws" or we don't - if you release a murderer and allow him to vote and be employed and purchase a home - then why can't they purchase a firearm. This law sticks and causes more harm than not. Most crimes - particularly major mass shootings aren't done by ex-offenders - rather they're done by those citizens who can walk into a gun store and purchase a legal firearm.
It always comes to the same thing. At what point are they allowed to take away? Somebody’s constitutionally protected rights? A free American citizen. Has the rights protected by the constitution and the government does not have the authority to violate or infringe upon those rights. So if they’re going to deem that this person is so dangerous that they shouldn’t have a gun and they also shouldn’t have a truck or an iron pipe or a knife, if these people are so dangerous than they should be in a mental institution or a prison once they’ve done their time and are free American citizen again then they should have the same rights as every other free American citizen. We have people trying to take away their constitutionally protected rights, and the same people are trying to let violent Felons out of prison early and are doing so already and giving them this zero dollar bail an instant release and they are protecting the criminals yet. They’re trying to use the criminal activity. These people do in society to warrant taking away peoples constitutionally protected rights once they get to a point where you can say any felon is never allowed to have a gun again They will just go make us all felons and take away our rights to ever have guns again. It’s ridiculous if they’ve serve their time and they are free American citizens, and they have basic human rights that are protected by the constitution and the governors not have the authority to infringe upon those rights. It’s just the way it is so if they’re worried about crime and protecting people, then they need to put violent criminals in prison where they belong or in a mental institution if they’re mentally ill, but being Louis with the law and allowing the government to take away peoples constitutionally protected rights with scare tactics is ridiculous. If you’re a free American citizen you should be able to exercise all of your constitutionally protected rights and it’s really none of the governments business if you’re a danger to society, then they need to remove you from society. It’s that simple the idea that they can just take away your rights by calling you a felon is nonsense, assuming it will be a felony to make politically incorrect to post on social media or make a video like this on social media, and it will start convicting people calling them, felons and taking away their guns and property and rights. Sorry you could argue if they were on probation that they were still under a form of incarceration and therefore those rights would be suspended during that period but, the constitution is clear free American citizens have a bunch of rights listed in the Bill of Rights, and the government does not have the authority to take those rights away from them, or infringe upon those rights and must protect them from anybody who tries. So if they deem is people so dangerous that they can’t have a gun and they need to be locked up otherwise they’re free citizens again and can do whatever they want because they are free citizens and the government needs to mind it’s own business. We don’t want the government to protect us from violent criminals only when they try to kill us with guns they could also kill us with bombs and lawnmowers and economy, cars, or an electric car or a solar panel. The gun is it killing the people the violent felon is, and if they are a violent felon and dangerous to society, then the government needs to incarcerate them. If not, then it’s none of the governments business, if they want to own a gun or a car or a gallon of ice cream.
If an ex felon is not considered a member of the people, then that ex felon should not be expected to pay taxes to the same government who deemed him ( or her) a lesser class or not one of the people.
It was brought to my attention that once you’ve had a felony in the United States. If it still shows on your record, you cannot go to certain countries like Canada I believe Japan Australia, so if it was non-violent, you punish for the rest of your life so you haven’t served your debt to society if you’re still isolated on where you can travel thanks Chris M.
I am 60 yrs old. When I was 17 or 18 I got my first and only felony!!! I have never been allowed to owns gun.. This is crazy. 42 years ago I had a felony. Etc is wrong w this picture?
Wondering how it would work if my first felony now is considered not illegal possession for sales of marijuana a none violent offense and then 10 years later picked up a second felony for felon with possession of a firearm. So if my first felony isn't considered a felony anymore what would be of my second felony?
You should have your second felony conviction set aside and dismissed I never gave up my firearm when I was convicted of a felony I have always stood by my bill of rights and anyone who has ever tried to go against my rights I just dismissed them because they have no authority to take them away from me period
I don’t think these decisions should be made solely on seriousness of the crime. I think it would be more appropriate to judge a person based on their level of rehabilitation. If a person has changed and is currently living a law-abiding life and can convince a judge that they are no longer a threat to society then they should get their rights restored.
You can’t convince a biased and unrighteous judge of anything nor should you try. Those people are agents of the State, remember? Your current state of affairs should speak for itself. Fk a judge or anyone else who, tries to dehumanize me by scribbling some shyte on a piece of paper
No they should have their rights restored as soon as they are released from custody without any further action and if a citizen is denied their civil rights and liberties then they should also be exempt from mandatory taxes why should anyone who is not allowed to have their rights protected by any means required to pay taxes for the protection of their rights
If an individual is arrested, then serves their time in prison, and is then released, their rights should be restored fully. Full stop...end of story. They have paid their debt to society and should be treated no differently than someone who has never committed a crime.
Only while under the 'care' of the state; incarceration or under parole and not unless demonstrated a demonstrated physical threat to the people of the state.. laws have gone to far in many aspects to make a subjugated population.
I dont feel like felonies should follow you for the duration of your life. I just think there should be a time frame on them just like a misdemeanor. If a person can serve their time and go maybe 10 years and keep a clean nose. That is a show that, that person has been Rebelitated and should have all their rights restored. Criminals are usually career criminals there should be a difference between a person that made a mistake and a person that is always on the wrong side of the law. But under these current guidelines the two are treated the same
At 25 seconds, and I can confirm if by 60 seconds in this background music does not end. I will not be continuing with this video. -Paul Alexander Burnette Edit to say. You did me proper. So I stayed for the entire video and added a like
This was a great debate. Are convicted felons one of the people? Does a felony conviction apply equally to all Amendments in the Bill of Rights? If some has served their full debt to society - does the law believe in rehabilitation?
It's sad that constitutional scholar law professors do not know the Constitution any better than Jake Charles does. First off, shall not be infringed means exactly that. There is no "except when" clause or statement in the Constitution. We also know (or at least believe - heaven help the cause of Justice in the United States if otherwise), as incomplete or invalid as is the Bruen test, at least for non-violent felons, this ban will fail on the Bruen test. Supreme Court case law does NOT make any determination of fact about the constitutionality of any thing. For it to be true that they actually do decide on Constitutionality they either have to be serving as supreme authority over the entire government and people of the United States but, also, have the ability to change the Constitution by edict. If that is not so, then what happens when they rule one day that there is a constitutionally protected right to abortion and then, 50 years later, rule that there is no such right? In one of those cases or the other, or both, they would have to have actually changed the Constitution, not by Article V of the Constitution but, instead, by Supreme edict. Is that what happened? Did the Constitution change one of those two times or both? Of course not. What happened is, and we can certainly all disagree about in which case, in one of those two rulings, or perhaps both, the Court was simply wrong. So, no, they do not determine or make a thing constitutional or otherwise. They can say it how they wish and make precedential claims how they wish, but they give nothing more than an opinion. When Justice Scalia said that there are limits to the right to keep and bear arms, he was just wrong. Period. Every infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. There could, potentially, be gun laws that are not unconstitutional. For instance, a State government could make a law that says all guns sold within the State, or brought into the State in interstate or international commerce, must meet SAAMI standards in design for chamber pressure. That would be a legal gun law. A gun law that says any person is forbidden from keeping and bearing arms when that person is not in custody stemming from due process for criminal acts or for mental, or other emotional conditions that make them, according to the finding with due process, a threat to themselves or others. In these cases, their access to arms to bear is restricted so they cannot bear arms but, even then, if you're arrested and taken into custody without your guns, you still own your guns and they should be exactly where you left them when you eventually are released from custody with the exception of any relocation for housekeeping services or where the arrest happened in a public place. Gun banners such as Jake Charles commonly claim that lawbreakers were not included in "the People" in 1791 but he, like all of the others who make that claim, can never provide the records of law or courts to back that up. We're supposed to just take their word for it because, you know, it sounds nice - to gun controllers and banners. His proposed theories that violent or dangerous felons could not own guns is as legally and historically bankrupt as is his theory about non-violent felons. Those laws did not exist and gun-control attorney Jake Charles cannot provide a supporting historical record to back up his theories. Gun-controller Charles makes the unsupported claim that all felonies were capital crimes and that if you could take a persons life, you could certainly take their guns. First, it is not at all a fact that all felonies, not even all violent felonies, not even all murders, were capital offenses. And in those cases where they were, the sentences were ordered by a judge who considered the facts of the specific case rather than some national law that said if you litter too much we're going to kill you. Both Jake Charles and the TALKSONLAW host show their ignorance of the modern gun control laws against felons. The host says, at 4:14, "and it's not until the 60's that we get the Federal law?" and gun-controller Charles replies, "Yes, that's right". The first felon ban, with a very short, specific, list of violent crimes that were included, was part of the Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938. Many who have not actually done the research and study assume that the violent felon was changed to any felony with the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 but that's not accurate. In 1961, Congress passed Public Law 87-342 which removed the phrase *_"crime of violence"_***, a term specifically defined in the FFA, that definition left remaining but no longer of any effect because the term was otherwise removed from the FFA. The "crime of violence" term was replaced with the phrase ***_"crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."_* After the FFA was expanded in 1961, it was repealed and replaced by the GCA in 1968 and the list of prohibited persons grew even more. Of course we all know the history that that list of prohibited persons has been expanded even multiple times since 1968. One would expect a 2nd Amendment scholar attorney to know this history and report it accurately when discussing it but my experience is that the titles "Constitutional Scholar" and "2nd Amendment Scholar" are self-assigned titles and do not always mean that there is any accurate or deep understanding or support for either of those two contexts. You completely take Barrett out of context in the Kanter case. First off, Kanter was decided pre-Bruen using interest balancing. Even with the interest balancing focus in the inferior Federal Courts,, Barrett's dissent in Kanter centered heavily around the history and the fact that there were no historical analogues to support the non-violent felon ban - and this pre-Bruen. Of course, Kanter was Barrett's thesis for her Supreme Court bid. Like so many federal judges, when "applying" for the Supreme Court, they are on their conservative, constitutionalist, best behavior but, once promoted, they begin to vote their personal agendas. But, in Kanter, when she wrote about the potential for bans of dangerous people, she rejected the New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Massachussets proposals because those were all rejected by the Founders in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Here's the summary of that Barrett wrote about those proposals: *_"Several things bear emphasis here. First, none of the relevant limiting language made its way into the Second Amendment. Second, only New Hampshire’s proposal-the least restrictive of the three-even carried a majority of its convention. See 2 SCHWARTZ, supra, at 628, 675, 758. Third, proposals from other states that advocated a constitutional right to arms did not contain similar language of limitation or exclusion. See Kates, 82 MICH. L. REV. at 222 (citing 1 ELLIOT, supra, at 328, 335). And finally, similar limitations or exclusions do not appear in any of the four parallel state constitutional provisions enacted before ratification of the Second Amendment. See Eugene Volokh, State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 TEX. REV. L. & POL. 191, 208 (2006) (North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Massachusetts)."_* She actually does go on to suggest that those proposals deserve to be considered in interpreting the 2nd Amendment but she doesn't use them to suggest that any such restrictions existed or should be permitted today. She is actually wrong even that they should be considered other than, perhaps, simply to know that the Founders explicitly considered and then rejected restricting the ownership of guns, or of any arms at all, based on criminal behavior. She quotes Crime and Punishment In American History to say, *_"But as the number of designated felonies continued to grow, so did the variations on punishment, especially in the American colonies. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, capital punishment in the colonies was used “sparingly,” and property crimes including variations on theft, burglary, and robbery “were, on the whole, not capital.”"_* So, although gun controllers, like yourselves, claim that the lack of actual laws banning felons from owning guns was that felons were put to death, it is just not so, is it? There are zero historical analogues for restricting any individual, any felon, violent crimes or otherwise, from owning and possessing a firearm when not in "gaol" as they spelled it back then. The dangerousness provisions were against traitors, Catholics, slaves or black Americans, non-citizens who swore oaths to other nations. Most, likely all, of those restrictions could not stand today so they cannot represent analogues for modern gun control laws. I'm sure the Government would like to, for instance, use those cases as justification for banning Trump voters or anyone who liked a Trump tweet, etc., but, hopefully, we have not come to that. No, there's no justification in history or the Constitution for restricting any one not in custody, having had due process, for a crime or because of being adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others - and then only for the period of incarceration.
I have a misdemeanor battery charge. And I can't carry because they say it's a violent offense. But you can bump into someone by accident, and that's battery
*where in the Constitution For The United States is anything to do w/ the phrase or term, federal?* *Last I checked there hasn't been a Lawful standing government since the Act of 1871...but I digress.*
Part of agreeing to probation or parole is to obey a set list of conditions. I don't see a problem with someone serving either of those being prohibited from possessing a firearm as unconstitutional, because you have to agree to them and are perfectly capable of refusing to do so. Once someone's time has been fully served, their debt to society is paid in the eyes of the law, and they should have no restrictions. And let's face it, if a convicted felon wants to get their hands on a gun to resume a life of crime, no prohibition is going to stop them. In some places it's actually easier for them to get a gun illegally than it is for a law abiding citizen to legally purchase one.
The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally protected liberties. Boyd V. US 116 US 616. Encroachment Intrusion on a person's territory, rights, etc.
Committing a crime carries a time penalty. Why does the convicted felon get a life sentence way beyond the time served and restitution paid for the crime. It is based on the projection and assumption that a crime MAY BE committed in the future. No rational justification or justice is delivered here.
I call B.S. The Constition is "clear" when it was written and the 2nd Amd. when near the end, "shall not be infringed" means you can't lose the right to bare arms. Example during the Vietnam war the government "enlisted convicted felons to go to war instead of prison" ( 2 tiered ) and when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution the reason they NEVER put except violent offenders is because they believe everyone should have the RIGHT to DEFEND there country from envaders, themselves, and if the GOVERNMENT got CORRUPT in any shape or form. Plus the Supreme Courts before it became Corrupt in 1939 and the United States of America went bankrupt to become the United States those justices never reconized any ruling after 1939 because every citizen became an enemy of the state in which is the birth of the UCC ( Uniform Commerical Code) in turn made the (United States) Corporation on doing COMMERCE hench all Cap names and social security numbers. Now if really gotta throw FACTS in "when Lincoln got the title War Commander to declare Martial Law he was suppose to give that title back to Congress and restore the power back to the people because martial law freezes the Constitution" some argue that you can only declare Martial Law once so to fool the people because this power and title gave a sitting president too much power they added "state of emergency". I can debate this with FACTS.
What is amazing to me is an entity that has absolutely zero morals or decent virtues ie. Government somehow makes decisions about other people's virtues and morals. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
What gets me is my brother got caught with a single joint in 1989 at which time was a felony. That's 35 years ago but it still prevents him from owning a firearm as he is a convicted felon. Today that same thing is not even a misdemeanor. Sorry but that is bullsh!t. He has no other crimes, worked in the same field for 30 years and raised 4 kids on his own
Denying a felon from exercising all his constitutional rights creates a 2nd class citizen. If I can't have my 2A rights the government should no be able to exercise the 16th over me. How do you think k that would go down in court
A well regulated militia has nothing to do with laws or legislation. A well regulated militia means a well armed people with weapons that are in good working order.
If you fabricate your own Gunpowder Mass Accelerator and it does not require a serial number or considered a firearm could a felon possess non registered home-made gun?
It should only ban people who commit violent felonies while using a firearm. Use a firearm irresponsibly, lose your right to use one. NOT commit any random felony and lose an unrelated right. ESPECIALLY in the case of possessing a firearm. Simply possessing a firearm in a place where it is not permitted means you lose your right to own a firearm FOREVER?! What a bunch of bs.
*when anyone who DISAGREES with you is then labeled as a domestic terrorist and you're the one in power...who holds you accountable?* *B.a.r. British Accreditation Registrar aka bar guild system similar to if not directly related to a subsidiary of the Freemasonry...depending on your degree.*
The only Americans that should be denied the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are those that are presently serving a prison sentence, awaiting a decision on an indictment, and those that are on parole for the same or like. Once a citizen has paid their debt back to society, IMO, their Rights (All of Them) should b!e reinstated. PERIOD
I've had a minute to think about what has been said. According to the founding fathers. The same men that committed treason against the King of England. Jolly old George. The same men that killed British soldiers. These men wrote the 2nd amendment at a time when it was encouraged to bring your firearm to church on Sunday. I think their definition of violent crime was different than what we call violent. Point in fact, a person can get into a fight with a total stranger. No major damage. 30 days misdemeanor. A fella could get quite a few of those before they are considered prohibited. Violent? You bet. Prohibited? Not a chance. But it doesn't take much to get rung up on some charges you don't have enough money to get out of. I'm not guilty of being violent, I'm guilty of being poor. And for the rest of my life, I will never forget it.
one thing pointed out is that at the founding a felony was a capital offense. over time the bar has dropped allowing crimes that even today are misdemeanors under federal law now classed as felonies in state law which ultimately results in more convicted felons in the country.
I have a question about this I have a felony for a assault does that mean that I can't get a even though I have been off of parole for 3 years and in new York I was just wondering if I could get my gun rights after 20 years I'm just wondering that's all please and thank you
Im a ex felon for cannabis ciltivation in california befire it was leagal. Im called a felon by the courts and lawenforcement . Am i or woukd i be called a infraction or misdemeanor for the rest of my life if i had commited a misdemeanor or infraction???
I have a felony from 1992 for Possession of Narcotics, I did the time and got out in March 10th of 1995. I never ever looked back and been working ever since, How do I know if I do or don't have the right to bare Arms? I am currently working with an Attorney to help me get a Pardon from the Government
After completing 10 years of parole my rights were returned to me although I'm not sure that included firearms, it has now been 30 years since I was released from parole with no new convictions for anything other than traffic violations. Is there a chance that I could purchase a firearm?
Once a person is released from jail, they should retain all rights as an American citizen since they have “served their debt to society” and the lautenberg amendment should be struck down as well.
Infringed Actively break the terms of,act so as to limit or undermine, encroach on. ABRIDGE Curtail (a right or privilege),to reduce in scope: diminish:deprive.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
The justice department (courts) and law enforcement have been operating illegally unconstitutionally for the past 100 years.
Absolutely. No gun laws enacted in the 20th Century are Constitutional.
Yep, High treason has been committed for decades like 10 plus.
A nation stolen from those who had been here for generations...? What? Say it aint so..
@@SpinDoc420 Stolen from who?
So are you akin to AOC who believes the US Supreme Court should have no power? Or are you and AOC unaware of how the US Constitution grants power to the US Supreme Court?
If an American citizen is convicted of a felony and served his time and released back into society he has the Constitutional 2nd Amendment Right to be armed just as any other American citizen.
Not true in many states, and the felonies in question and other factors have to factor in .
You hold up a store at gunpoint and do your time for the armed robbery, that right should be considered as a privilege, not just assumed because time was served. Things like chances of reoffending also need to factored in.
I'm saying this also as a convicted felon who's rights were forfeited by my choices decades ago. It's bullshit to miss it for damage done to an apartment and the felony only being because of the damage amount, but that is the system we have and I accept that .
But my paper work also specifically said firearms.... So I got good with everything else..
@@SpinDoc420You are assuming that the courts are just, which they are not. Reread the 2nd amendment.
@@tigerm08 i know it well, unlike too .amy,I have taken the time to read the major writings that are foundation to this nation
@@tigerm08the second amendment is not infinite. There are very good reasons to deny felons firearms. And there are very good reasons to track who owns machine guns and not allow any new ones to be made and sold to the public.
I believe that felons should get their rights back if they have been out of trouble for ten years or more
The 2A is not open to Executive, Congressional or Judicial review based on 'shall not be infringed.' The Founder's intent was make quite clear in their writings. Government is not permitted to infringe upon the 2A in any way, shape or form.
Congress and courts have no authority to prohibit any American citizen from possessing firearms.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Any FREE man is NEVER to be debarred the right to bear arms. If someone is too violent to own a gun then they must be convicted in a court of law and the jail sentence imposed IS the method of barring violent criminals from owning firearms. There cannot be a law that punishes an individual AFTER they have paid their entire debt to society.
@@truone637BINGO
They do have the authority to hang felons.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 from the time that they used to "hang felons" to now...the definition of a felon has BROADLY expanded. The statute itself is not even "Felon Not to Possess" anymore. It's "Prohibited Person's Not to Possess" which includes a multitude of categories that are NOT felons. So how do you explain the government's broad overreach on that? You're vouching for the government broadly hanging felons and saying that they have the power to do so while not addressing how they have usurped power to unconstitutionally bar categories of people (including felons) from bearing arms.
@@truone637Iost mine due to a non violent , non drug charge ( criminal mischief, damage over 1k) thus a felony... No votes, no pewpews..thanks to the republican leadership of Florida
Basically the 2nd amendment should have just been “Under no circumstances aside from during incarceration shall a person be denied the ability to own and carry any weapon” and left at that.
Agreed
But it doesn’t.
And be given back their rights to them when they have done their time debt paid to community's end of story
@seanwilliams2781 You're correct however I think people need to remember and understand that when we say "felons shouldn't be stripped of their rights" that we don't mean people currently in prison because I don't how or why they'd give you a weapon while in there but they should be able to have their rights back (or active or some interpretation once they have paid their debt back to society.
I agree. If we cannot trust you with a firearm then you should remain in prison.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed !!!
💯💯💯💯 agreed!!!
Yeah seems simple enough a 5th grader would understand but 10s of thousands of politicians, lawyers and judges just don’t get it. 🙏🙏👍💪
NO NO NO
EVERYBODY HAS THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF!
GOD GIVEN!
NO HUMAN CAN CHANGE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS!
You know I believe OBAMA BIDEN BEHIND
SCHOOL SHOOTINGS. LOOK AT THE Pattern across the country they hit every part.
To get gun control.no better way to get gun control then to kill people children.
Right.they don't give a uck. Texas the Cia brainwash mental Teen last words over dead teachers phone was.
I only did what they told me to do.wtf? No job no money but armed with around $10.000 in guns ammo.
You think? Huh. Proof what I say.
@@Nono-pd4cnOh? Do you think you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Because a felon in possession of a firearm can easily take that away. Only a felon or an idiot would argue for criminals to have 2nd Amendment rights.
All American citizens are the people
Yes and anyone inside the United States of America boarders. It's why you have a reference to the people and references to the citizens. So all citizens are the people but not all people are citizens.
But felons are not citizens.
Yea but some powerful people are scared of guns. So they have to keep the people down with something!
@@Pewpew1789 So powerful people are keeping down the gang bangers in South Chicago who kill Black children?
It's been said there is a difference between being a citizen and one of the people. Being a citizen is a privilege and being one of the people is a sovereign right.
The courts have no legal lawful authority or jurisdiction to take away any American citizens constitutionally protected rights (liberties). The court only has authority to suspend second amendment rights only when a citizen is incarcerated in jail or prison,all rights are inalienable rights they should by law constitutionally be immediately restored upon release.
Heck NO, VIOLENT Crime you new better you LOOSE YOUR RIGHT to own a GUN!!!😡
@@patillo56*knew
@@patillo56 I don't think you understand rights; they are not given or taken away by mankind - they are God given. The judges oath includes the phrase: So help me God. As a quick websearch shows GotQuestions explains: ""The essential purpose of saying “so help me God” is to express sincerity and emphasize greater vigilance: “I mean what I am saying, my testimony is true, and I will do everything I can with God’s help to perform my duty with the utmost diligence and integrity.” Summoning the Lord’s help acknowledges God’s existence as the supreme authority and invokes His punishment if an oath is broken. ""
This creates a dilemma for judges because by abrogating God given rights they have actually gone against Gods will - the judge acts as if he or she is above God - and that cannot happen without the judges oath being broken, both his oath to God and his oath as a judge:
"""I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”""
By breaking these oaths the judge has incurred the Wrath of God, ” Summoning the Lord’s help acknowledges God’s existence as the supreme authority and INVOKES His PUNISHMENT if an oath is broken. ""
Now, under 18 USC 242 it explains what that really means: """Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for ANY term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to DEATH."""
@@patillo56not all felonies are violent, or even have a victim at all. What about them?
@@patillo56If they’re too violent to own arms, why are they being released from prison?
There are many people who have been convicted of felonies that the felony is not a serious act and didn't harm anyone, didn't make anyone a victim, didn't take any property from anyone, didn't threaten anyone in any way.
I got arrested for possession of less than one gram of a drug that is considered a felony. I was on private property and not breaking any laws, parked in my vehicle on a private driveway and a L.E.O. drove by me and made a u turn and pulled onto the the private property driveway to do some fishing. Asked me if I was okay, I said yes. He asked for my license and registration. Now, I'm in a brand new 4x4 pick up truck, well dressed, had license and registration and insurance, which are also not necessary according to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. A person shall be able to travel on any road or highway with their personal property without being impeded or have a toll or be subject to stop unless they've broken a law that then requires a traffic stop. Even then the operator does not need to have a license or registration or insurance.
Back to my story. So the officer runs my ID etc... and then decides he's gonna tell me my eyes are red and have I been doing any drinking or drugs. I said no but I have been awake since 4:15 am that morning for work and it is now almost 8pm and I just had dinner and was about to make my 30 minute drive home and I'm tired. He has me get out of the car and gives me a field sobriety test. At that time another officer pulls up and proceeds to search my truck. Finds the small amount of drugs and they arrest me. I then a convicted felon. Never been arrested before. I was 32 yrs old. Union electrician, and now I am on probation for two years have to go to drug classes and my rights to own a firearm has been taken and my right to vote has been taken.
Ten years later I got my voting rights back but still can't ever legally own a firearm or have one in my home even if it is my wife's or if it is a friend's. If I am in a vehicle with someone and they have a firearm I go to jail.
That's absolutley ridiculous. I did what I needed to do as the court sentenced me with, I satisfied all fines and obligations etc... no more trouble and yet I'm not allowed to defend myself my family, my property, or go hunting for food or just shoot at targets on private or public property. I can go into a gun range and rent one of their firearms and buy ammunition to use right there that day, to shoot targets but that is it.
That is not reason enough to have my rights to own a firearm taken for the rest of my life. Why should I be victim or my loved ones or a neighbor or a shop clerk be victims because some violent criminal has a firearm and is using it or threatening to use it and I can't help anyone or stop this criminal because I had a small personal amount of a drug someone decided to make illegal so they can profit from convicting people for choosing to put something in my body? Who are they to tell anyone what you can eat drink smoke or whatever you want to yourself? There was no victim until the cops overstepped their own oath to protect and uphold the Constitution and the rights of the people and wanted to play pirate and stop my vessel and board my ship illegally in search of profits and prisoners with no probable cause or need for suspicion, making me the victim of their tyranny.
So does that sound like a just judicial and law enforcement system? They are just enforcing the laws that were written by a man who has no authority over any other man to write laws that he created out of thin air to gain power and profit.
I'm allowed to vote again, why can't I own a firearm?
Sue all officials involved in a federal court under title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 section 5, title 18 U.S.C. section 1918. 42 1983,1985, they have no legal immunity from being sued for civil rights violations. Get your rights restored and some compensation for their treasonous traitorous crimes.
The funny thing is what most officials don't comprehend and realize all drugs are constitutionally legal, Congress never made a constitutional amendment outlawing drugs therefore technically legally all drug laws are illegal unconstitutional laws. The government has been illegally unconstitutionally enforcing them for the past 80 or so years.
@@dragonf1092 --- That is some excellent information you've suggested. I didn't know that civil suits can be used to bring charges against those who have Qualified Immunity.
Very interesting.
Thanks
@@13_13k sue them personally and officially.
@@dragonf1092 --- I don't know if I can sue them. It has been 20 years ago when that happened.
Don't call them felons if they have paid their debt to society they are not a felon... They have a past felony conviction but the debt is paid....
Thank you!
Thank you! I committed a robbery 12 years ago and was a drug addict. It was labeled as a non dangerous felony though..As bad as it sounds I’m glad it happened because it changed my life. I served my time and have not been in trouble since. I own a house, I have an amazing job.
I’m am archery hunter and there are mountain lions and bears where I hunt and when I hunt in southern Arizona I run into a bunch of illegal immigrants crossing the border. I wish I could carry a sidearm when I hunted for my protection. I made a mistake, i paid my dues and pride myself on being a kind and honest person now. I wish society can see me the same as I see myself now and not see me for the one mistake I made 12 years ago.
I have a violent felony from years ago, and I'll tell ya: GOOD LUCK with getting people to think this way in many sectors of society. But I appreciate the sentiment from you, genuinely.
As the Construction recognizes one class of citizen , once a person has paid their debt to society all rights need to be restored , unless for some reason the person has waived their rights .
All rights are inalienable/unalienable rights. They cannot legally be waved away.
Inalienable/unalienable
Cannot be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
not sure why we ever allowed these tyrants to make legislation over i us at all!very upsetting.a person is deemed fit to be in society even woth a violent felony.then has ten plus years of bieng a good citizen no further trouble.yet has to continue paying beyond for thier life sounds a but like cruel and unusual punishment to me.....very disheartening in my own country.not sure why no one can see this this way.thier should be some kind of way out of this extrajudicial bs!!!my point is.....if the parole board decided the felon was fit and able to be back in society.abd that person hasnt reoffended after point five years ten years then they should be able to regain thier second amendent.unalienable seems pretty clear.shall not infringe also comes to mind.the citizens have been tread upon by these politicians and whoever treasonous thought up these unconstitutional legislations.its tantamount to double joepardy really.or extrajudicial punishment.an individual should be given thier god given right and be free from any other individuals ideas over this!who are they to say anything since a person paid thier societal debt!!?if the person was released they were released.why should that person have to pay a lifetime?beyond the scope of the judgment?
@@dragonf1092 Agree to parole forever? 'Unusual punishment' .. by duress? ..pilling on the charges.
At the time of the felons conviction, one aspect of paying "your debt to society" was a lifetime ban on owning guns. So until that "commitment" is fullfed, you still own that debt.
No contract Is legal that is signed under duress or coercion.
If time is served,all rights should be renewed.
If I'm trusted enough to be released from prison I should be trusted to legally enough to own a firearm.
All constitutionally protected rights (liberties) are inalienable/unalienable rights.
Inalienable/unalienable
Cannot be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
Straight fact
They're only inaliable to whom the Constitution makes it clear for to be inaliable.
Remember, the Fathers made it clear who "We the People" is at the time. "We the People" means American born, to an American father, White, Law abiding, Protestant males. Anyone who does not fit this definition is thus not protected by neither the 1st nor 2nd, nor any amendments. Women, Non Whites (freed or slaves), Non Christians (although other sects that weren't Protestant were usually excluded), basically anyone that passes as "Un-American" (whatever that is) can have their rights infringed upon. That definition of course, always changed with time to the point the consensus now is any person born in America is entitled the right to own a gun, though the text doesn't explicitly say that.
So now we are stuck in a very peculiar situation. The Constitution simultaneously protects a large group of individuals, but if we're going by the Fathers' raw definition as it in text, it also excludes a significant portion. So the Constitution simultaneously favors and abhors gun control.
To a degree I can accept the restriction of no buying or possessing a firearm while someone is on probation or parole. I always feel though what irritates me is the lifetime ban of it. I've seen people change their ways and put a long time between their troubled past and their life that they have rebuilt being a productive member of society. To tell that person that they for the rest of their lives will not be able to own a firearm to help defend themselves, their home or their family sounds excessive, cruel and unjust.
And unconstitutional...
BINGO.
Cruel and unusual punishment i would say. I have no ability to defend myself or my family against an armed intruder. Harsh language and dirty looks isn't going to help me protect my home. And as a former felon, don't count on law enforcement to rescue you.
These laws suck, you can write a bad check at 20 years old for $500 and be barred from owning a firearm the rest of your life
Over an eviction party to protest a slumlord landlord as a dumb ass 22 year old, 25 years ago.. and the felony stands
Yeah man. The law smells like sh*t. This isnt the only unconstitutional law either. Did you know taxing non-business owners is also technically unconstitutional?
@@bringer-of-change how so and be sure to show your work and cite sources.. none of the sovereign citizen craziness, please
@@SpinDoc420 Do it yourself. I dont owe you anything. 🤨
@@SpinDoc420 Seriously are you some kind of tool or what? Your just gonna talk sh*t about the sources and act like you know what your talking about. The people werent always taxed. It was corperations that payed taxes.
When the Constitution was written they never meant for it to picked apart piece by piece, word by word! The ATF wants to take one little word and tear it apart and change the Constitution! We either have a Constitution or we don't! Which is it?
We'd best have a Constitution, or what do we have left to lose?
Anyone who has had their Second Amendment rights taken away should no longer be required to pay state or federal taxes.
Exactly. We are not allowed to have a gun. But are expected to pay taxes like the people that that are. One can pay money to get those rights back. So who are we paying the funds to? And why does it cost money to get a right given to you in 1776? Ridiculous excuse of the Government having to much power. Power that the common man allowed them to possess.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED* We need politicians and judges that know how to read
Bigger question is why do I have to ask permission from the government to have weapons to defend myself from the government.
Thank you for shedding light on this subject that no one wants to touch. Not all ex felones are violent or sexual offenders and thanks to the case of Range V Garland and it’s currant ruling, this subject is moving in the right direction, finally.
Thanks for the comment, Luis. We have a dozen more topics related to the Second Amendment that we'll be publishing later this year. Stay tuned!
Yes, SCOTUS has now identified that it is set to address this issue in Rahimi (Petition GRANTED Jun 30 2023).
I truly believe it doesn’t matter whether it’s a violent or sex offense. Once the prison term is completed then they should be able to get all their rights back. If that’s the case then they should never be released back into society if all their rights are not protected and restored.
@@DP-fg8bxNot that I'm a violent sex offender, but I would go as far as to say that if felons are no longer considered to be the people, then they are no longer subject to the laws that govern the people.
@@Talksonlaw I very much look forward to it. Thanks again.
The constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land doesn't give Congress, states, federal,local governments,courts authority to deny any American citizen their rights to possess or carry any weapons (ARMS) whatsoever.
100% agree, but until a jury has the courage to nullify unjust laws or a manipulation in the US Constitution then the police and the lower and higher courts will continue to do business as illegally and unjust and abusive as they have been.
People often don't think about it but if a felon cannot be in possession of a gun than they also cannot be around a gun or a similar protection device... So since felony convictions are not private matters but public it would not be hard to see who could be a potential victim... Not just a felon but the whole house.
It does, because the COnstitution also determines who is the "People"
Remember, at one point the "People" only applied to White, Christian, law abiding Males, born in America to an American parent as the definition of American. Women, Indians, Blacks (either slaves or free), Non Christians (which ironically enough, could also exclude Catholics), the mentally ill and Felons were all excluded the right of protection by the 2A. And since then, that definition of "We the People" is still technically correct, as is the newer interpretation that any free person born in the US is allowed to have guns, regardless of sex, gender and race.
So you're stuck in a peculiar situation. Where the Constitution advocates gun control for a specific part of society, but exempts another, while also applying it to everyone. It's an example of a Law that didn't change with the times.
@@peixeserra9116 felons were never deprived of their constitutionally protected second amendment rights untill 1934 when Traitors in Congress illegally passed the NFA in violation of article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment, and the 14th amendment section 1, every individual american citizen who is natural born or naturalized is the people.
@@peixeserra9116 article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment 14 section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states
Second amendment
THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
(The second amendment is the privilege, immunity (right)of each and every individual american citizen in the united states of America).
All Congressmen, senators, judges including supreme Court justices, governor's,mayor's,city council member,law enforcement officers are all state officials and therefore prohibited under the 14th amendment section 1 (no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states)and 10th amendment (nor prohibited to the states) from passing or enforcing any form of gun control laws whatsoever.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 makes background checks, licenses, permits,gun free zones,red flag laws illegal.
Second amendment makes all gun control laws and enforcement of said laws illegal (shall not be Infringed).
14th amendment section 1 makes passing and enforcing them illegal.
There are no such words within the 2nd amendment that says "Except for ____".
The question is a no brainer. All prior felons remain Citizens and all Citizens have the Right to defend themselves and their families. Takins the most effective means of defense not only deprives them of that Right, it deprives their families of it too. Secondly, any law which establishes a class of Citizen and then denies that class of a Right based on being a mamber of that class is by definition a Bill of Attainder. Third, a lifetime ban on the means of effective defense also is an imposition of Cruel and unusual punishment. Fourth, the Constitution does not give any State nor the Federal government the power to restrict a Citizen's Rights ant any law that does also violates the 10th Amendment. Finally, the laws fail the Bruen test as there was never an analogous law at the founding that restricted a Citizen's 2A Rights. Indeed, the 1792 Militia Act mandated that all able bodied men possess a firearm and sufficient ammunition for militia duty. Additionally, prior to the 1968 GCA, many states mandated returning a releasing prisoner's guns ao provide him/her one
Well stated. If an individual is too dangerous for society they should be in jail. If they're not a dangerous unpredictable being..they should have their rights. Simple. These overgrown toddlers in power have made the decision that an individual who isn't a danger to society and doesn't need to be incarcerated still can't have rights. That's nuckin futz.
I had non violent drug sales felonies in Illinois. Over 40 yrs ago. Did under a year for the crimes. Never had another charge. Still have no gun rights to protect myself and my family.
I don’t know why everyone is complaining about not being able to have a firearm I don’t understand how people can allow an illegal law to govern them and would just lay down and accept the fact that they have no rights if you read the constitution it clearly states that these rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON I have owned and carried a firearm since I was 18 and I also have felony convictions and I never kept it a secret from anyone I stood my ground and told the only person who informed me to have someone hold my firearm until I was discharged from probation that I would be standing by my 2nd amendment rights and I would only surrender my firearm in one manner and that would be fist the bullets and then over my dead body they could take it away from me and that subject was never brought back up a law that is illegal is not enforceable and this is exactly what the 2nd amendment written for to protect ourselves and our rights and nobody should just lay down and accept that another person should deny you your right’s without a right that’s why I made it perfectly clear that nobody will be disarming me without a fight and if we all would stand up like our founding fathers have instructed us to do we wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now so go get your firearms and don’t let the government dictate what rights you are allowed to have you have your rights it’s your job to protect your rights and to defend your constitution from a tyrannical government
Us supreme Court
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment... In legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land (the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Bonnet V. Vallier, 16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193(1908); Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886).
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law"
True, but the question is whether you are prepared to deal with the consequences.
Temporarily allowing infringment of your right by an unconstitutional law and then using civil process to remove that infringment is much better (IMO) than not allowing any infringment of your right and then you being put through the criminal process instead.
courts may not be bound to enforce it; but just watch them enforce it anyway as they have done for decades. having said that.....your comment is very correct and our courts are not.
@@2Truth4Liberty that is what the problem the legal process is a judge and jury not a cop and jail.
@@danielslocum7169 because the judges are corrupt and treasonous.
@@dragonf1092 Being civil when being wronged is part of the price to be paid for a free and civilized society.
The Rule of Law is not perfect but it is light years ahead of the Law of the Jungle.
I'm a two time felon and never in my life did anything stupid with a firearm
I went to prison for DWI and I was 19 I'm 50 now and on my release in 03 have not even had a ticket. Why do I get all my rights back except guns? My crime had nothing to do with guns.
The term felony was narrowly and well defined at the time of the founding. Over the many decades, the state legislatures have vastly expanded the numerous crimes under that term, they're literally the arbitrators of who's allowed to have rights and who doesn't. How can someone who was convicted of a victimless crime or crimes that wasn't violent in nature or involving anyone else or even a firearm? The entire class of laws under the term felon need to be reviewed and reclassified or done away with all together. Plus the group of people who fall under the felon category, are legally allowed to be discriminated against in today's society! It's fucking nonsense that the laws can strip people of their rights when they weren't hurting anyone or crimes that didn't even have a victim or anyone but the individual involved
No, once someone has paid their debt to society for their crime. They should have all of their God Given Rights restored! If they paid their debt in full! , they should not have to report their past to employers. As it is now they are often unable to find employment and as a result return to crime.
This is by design to keep the systems in place. - Either we have "Just Laws" or we don't - if you release a murderer and allow him to vote and be employed and purchase a home - then why can't they purchase a firearm. This law sticks and causes more harm than not. Most crimes - particularly major mass shootings aren't done by ex-offenders - rather they're done by those citizens who can walk into a gun store and purchase a legal firearm.
It always comes to the same thing. At what point are they allowed to take away? Somebody’s constitutionally protected rights? A free American citizen. Has the rights protected by the constitution and the government does not have the authority to violate or infringe upon those rights. So if they’re going to deem that this person is so dangerous that they shouldn’t have a gun and they also shouldn’t have a truck or an iron pipe or a knife, if these people are so dangerous than they should be in a mental institution or a prison once they’ve done their time and are free American citizen again then they should have the same rights as every other free American citizen. We have people trying to take away their constitutionally protected rights, and the same people are trying to let violent Felons out of prison early and are doing so already and giving them this zero dollar bail an instant release and they are protecting the criminals yet. They’re trying to use the criminal activity. These people do in society to warrant taking away peoples constitutionally protected rights once they get to a point where you can say any felon is never allowed to have a gun again They will just go make us all felons and take away our rights to ever have guns again. It’s ridiculous if they’ve serve their time and they are free American citizens, and they have basic human rights that are protected by the constitution and the governors not have the authority to infringe upon those rights. It’s just the way it is so if they’re worried about crime and protecting people, then they need to put violent criminals in prison where they belong or in a mental institution if they’re mentally ill, but being Louis with the law and allowing the government to take away peoples constitutionally protected rights with scare tactics is ridiculous. If you’re a free American citizen you should be able to exercise all of your constitutionally protected rights and it’s really none of the governments business if you’re a danger to society, then they need to remove you from society. It’s that simple the idea that they can just take away your rights by calling you a felon is nonsense, assuming it will be a felony to make politically incorrect to post on social media or make a video like this on social media, and it will start convicting people calling them, felons and taking away their guns and property and rights. Sorry you could argue if they were on probation that they were still under a form of incarceration and therefore those rights would be suspended during that period but, the constitution is clear free American citizens have a bunch of rights listed in the Bill of Rights, and the government does not have the authority to take those rights away from them, or infringe upon those rights and must protect them from anybody who tries. So if they deem is people so dangerous that they can’t have a gun and they need to be locked up otherwise they’re free citizens again and can do whatever they want because they are free citizens and the government needs to mind it’s own business.
We don’t want the government to protect us from violent criminals only when they try to kill us with guns they could also kill us with bombs and lawnmowers and economy, cars, or an electric car or a solar panel. The gun is it killing the people the violent felon is, and if they are a violent felon and dangerous to society, then the government needs to incarcerate them. If not, then it’s none of the governments business, if they want to own a gun or a car or a gallon of ice cream.
Every lawyer I’ve spoken with wants $2500 to take my case
If an ex felon is not considered a member of the people, then that ex felon should not be expected to pay taxes to the same government who deemed him ( or her) a lesser class or not one of the people.
It was brought to my attention that once you’ve had a felony in the United States. If it still shows on your record, you cannot go to certain countries like Canada I believe Japan Australia, so if it was non-violent, you punish for the rest of your life so you haven’t served your debt to society if you’re still isolated on where you can travel thanks Chris M.
Does being convicted of a felony strip of you of your citizenship? If not then you cannot take away that right.
I am 60 yrs old. When I was 17 or 18 I got my first and only felony!!! I have never been allowed to owns gun.. This is crazy. 42 years ago I had a felony. Etc is wrong w this picture?
Wondering how it would work if my first felony now is considered not illegal possession for sales of marijuana a none violent offense and then 10 years later picked up a second felony for felon with possession of a firearm. So if my first felony isn't considered a felony anymore what would be of my second felony?
You should have your second felony conviction set aside and dismissed I never gave up my firearm when I was convicted of a felony I have always stood by my bill of rights and anyone who has ever tried to go against my rights I just dismissed them because they have no authority to take them away from me period
They were upset with me on my release date, I was going by the written law, I demanded, $40 a new set of clothes and a Winchester, I got The cash....
I don’t think these decisions should be made solely on seriousness of the crime. I think it would be more appropriate to judge a person based on their level of rehabilitation. If a person has changed and is currently living a law-abiding life and can convince a judge that they are no longer a threat to society then they should get their rights restored.
You can’t convince a biased and unrighteous judge of anything nor should you try. Those people are agents of the State, remember? Your current state of affairs should speak for itself. Fk a judge or anyone else who, tries to dehumanize me by scribbling some shyte on a piece of paper
No they should have their rights restored as soon as they are released from custody without any further action and if a citizen is denied their civil rights and liberties then they should also be exempt from mandatory taxes why should anyone who is not allowed to have their rights protected by any means required to pay taxes for the protection of their rights
Wow, attorneys being incorrect, shocking. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
If an individual is arrested, then serves their time in prison, and is then released, their rights should be restored fully. Full stop...end of story. They have paid their debt to society and should be treated no differently than someone who has never committed a crime.
Right on!
Anything can be "Constitutional" If they can rewrite the constitution.
Which is very hard to do.
So someone who committed a felony is no better than a slave
Correct.
Only while under the 'care' of the state; incarceration or under parole and not unless demonstrated a demonstrated physical threat to the people of the state.. laws have gone to far in many aspects to make a subjugated population.
After reading some of these comments, you would think it's impossible to not become a felon. Wonder how I made it.
I dont feel like felonies should follow you for the duration of your life. I just think there should be a time frame on them just like a misdemeanor. If a person can serve their time and go maybe 10 years and keep a clean nose. That is a show that, that person has been Rebelitated and should have all their rights restored. Criminals are usually career criminals there should be a difference between a person that made a mistake and a person that is always on the wrong side of the law. But under these current guidelines the two are treated the same
At 25 seconds, and I can confirm if by 60 seconds in this background music does not end. I will not be continuing with this video.
-Paul Alexander Burnette
Edit to say. You did me proper. So I stayed for the entire video and added a like
Leave it to lawyers/liars to rewrite/misinterpret/dishonor/disrespect the Constitution.
That how dishonest law enforcement is in iowa.
Thank You for your help and patience!! You’re very kind !!
This was a great debate. Are convicted felons one of the people? Does a felony conviction apply equally to all Amendments in the Bill of Rights? If some has served their full debt to society - does the law believe in rehabilitation?
If you have done your time, payed your debts to society , should have all rights restored !
Every body has the right to life and to protect that life, but not a felon??? What is wrong with this country
Shall not be infringed!
It's sad that constitutional scholar law professors do not know the Constitution any better than Jake Charles does. First off, shall not be infringed means exactly that. There is no "except when" clause or statement in the Constitution. We also know (or at least believe - heaven help the cause of Justice in the United States if otherwise), as incomplete or invalid as is the Bruen test, at least for non-violent felons, this ban will fail on the Bruen test.
Supreme Court case law does NOT make any determination of fact about the constitutionality of any thing. For it to be true that they actually do decide on Constitutionality they either have to be serving as supreme authority over the entire government and people of the United States but, also, have the ability to change the Constitution by edict. If that is not so, then what happens when they rule one day that there is a constitutionally protected right to abortion and then, 50 years later, rule that there is no such right? In one of those cases or the other, or both, they would have to have actually changed the Constitution, not by Article V of the Constitution but, instead, by Supreme edict. Is that what happened? Did the Constitution change one of those two times or both? Of course not. What happened is, and we can certainly all disagree about in which case, in one of those two rulings, or perhaps both, the Court was simply wrong. So, no, they do not determine or make a thing constitutional or otherwise. They can say it how they wish and make precedential claims how they wish, but they give nothing more than an opinion.
When Justice Scalia said that there are limits to the right to keep and bear arms, he was just wrong. Period. Every infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. There could, potentially, be gun laws that are not unconstitutional. For instance, a State government could make a law that says all guns sold within the State, or brought into the State in interstate or international commerce, must meet SAAMI standards in design for chamber pressure. That would be a legal gun law.
A gun law that says any person is forbidden from keeping and bearing arms when that person is not in custody stemming from due process for criminal acts or for mental, or other emotional conditions that make them, according to the finding with due process, a threat to themselves or others. In these cases, their access to arms to bear is restricted so they cannot bear arms but, even then, if you're arrested and taken into custody without your guns, you still own your guns and they should be exactly where you left them when you eventually are released from custody with the exception of any relocation for housekeeping services or where the arrest happened in a public place.
Gun banners such as Jake Charles commonly claim that lawbreakers were not included in "the People" in 1791 but he, like all of the others who make that claim, can never provide the records of law or courts to back that up. We're supposed to just take their word for it because, you know, it sounds nice - to gun controllers and banners. His proposed theories that violent or dangerous felons could not own guns is as legally and historically bankrupt as is his theory about non-violent felons. Those laws did not exist and gun-control attorney Jake Charles cannot provide a supporting historical record to back up his theories.
Gun-controller Charles makes the unsupported claim that all felonies were capital crimes and that if you could take a persons life, you could certainly take their guns. First, it is not at all a fact that all felonies, not even all violent felonies, not even all murders, were capital offenses. And in those cases where they were, the sentences were ordered by a judge who considered the facts of the specific case rather than some national law that said if you litter too much we're going to kill you.
Both Jake Charles and the TALKSONLAW host show their ignorance of the modern gun control laws against felons. The host says, at 4:14, "and it's not until the 60's that we get the Federal law?" and gun-controller Charles replies, "Yes, that's right". The first felon ban, with a very short, specific, list of violent crimes that were included, was part of the Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938. Many who have not actually done the research and study assume that the violent felon was changed to any felony with the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 but that's not accurate. In 1961, Congress passed Public Law 87-342 which removed the phrase *_"crime of violence"_***, a term specifically defined in the FFA, that definition left remaining but no longer of any effect because the term was otherwise removed from the FFA. The "crime of violence" term was replaced with the phrase ***_"crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."_* After the FFA was expanded in 1961, it was repealed and replaced by the GCA in 1968 and the list of prohibited persons grew even more. Of course we all know the history that that list of prohibited persons has been expanded even multiple times since 1968. One would expect a 2nd Amendment scholar attorney to know this history and report it accurately when discussing it but my experience is that the titles "Constitutional Scholar" and "2nd Amendment Scholar" are self-assigned titles and do not always mean that there is any accurate or deep understanding or support for either of those two contexts.
You completely take Barrett out of context in the Kanter case. First off, Kanter was decided pre-Bruen using interest balancing. Even with the interest balancing focus in the inferior Federal Courts,, Barrett's dissent in Kanter centered heavily around the history and the fact that there were no historical analogues to support the non-violent felon ban - and this pre-Bruen. Of course, Kanter was Barrett's thesis for her Supreme Court bid. Like so many federal judges, when "applying" for the Supreme Court, they are on their conservative, constitutionalist, best behavior but, once promoted, they begin to vote their personal agendas. But, in Kanter, when she wrote about the potential for bans of dangerous people, she rejected the New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Massachussets proposals because those were all rejected by the Founders in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Here's the summary of that Barrett wrote about those proposals: *_"Several things bear emphasis here. First, none of the relevant limiting language made its way into the Second Amendment. Second, only New Hampshire’s proposal-the least restrictive of the three-even carried a majority of its convention. See 2 SCHWARTZ, supra, at 628, 675, 758. Third, proposals from other states that advocated a constitutional right to arms did not contain similar language of limitation or exclusion. See Kates, 82 MICH. L. REV. at 222 (citing 1 ELLIOT, supra, at 328, 335). And finally, similar limitations or exclusions do not appear in any of the four parallel state constitutional provisions enacted before ratification of the Second Amendment. See Eugene Volokh, State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 TEX. REV. L. & POL. 191, 208 (2006) (North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Massachusetts)."_*
She actually does go on to suggest that those proposals deserve to be considered in interpreting the 2nd Amendment but she doesn't use them to suggest that any such restrictions existed or should be permitted today. She is actually wrong even that they should be considered other than, perhaps, simply to know that the Founders explicitly considered and then rejected restricting the ownership of guns, or of any arms at all, based on criminal behavior. She quotes Crime and Punishment In American History to say, *_"But as the number of designated felonies continued to grow, so did the variations on punishment, especially in the American colonies. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, capital punishment in the colonies was used “sparingly,” and property crimes including variations on theft, burglary, and robbery “were, on the whole, not capital.”"_* So, although gun controllers, like yourselves, claim that the lack of actual laws banning felons from owning guns was that felons were put to death, it is just not so, is it?
There are zero historical analogues for restricting any individual, any felon, violent crimes or otherwise, from owning and possessing a firearm when not in "gaol" as they spelled it back then. The dangerousness provisions were against traitors, Catholics, slaves or black Americans, non-citizens who swore oaths to other nations. Most, likely all, of those restrictions could not stand today so they cannot represent analogues for modern gun control laws. I'm sure the Government would like to, for instance, use those cases as justification for banning Trump voters or anyone who liked a Trump tweet, etc., but, hopefully, we have not come to that. No, there's no justification in history or the Constitution for restricting any one not in custody, having had due process, for a crime or because of being adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others - and then only for the period of incarceration.
The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller V. US 230 F.2d. 486,489.
'Post exfacto'
I have a misdemeanor battery charge. And I can't carry because they say it's a violent offense. But you can bump into someone by accident, and that's battery
The laws are way to black and white. “Nonviolent” felons should not be disarmed. Especially if they paid their time in prison.
Anyone who pays their due/debt in prison are a free people, if a man is to dangerous dont let him.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Haha 7:15 didn’t the 3rd Circuit just say it was unconstitutional?
*where in the Constitution For The United States is anything to do w/ the phrase or term, federal?*
*Last I checked there hasn't been a Lawful standing government since the Act of 1871...but I digress.*
Historically after a prisoner was released from jail his six shooter was returned to him by the sheriff and he rode off into the sun
Part of agreeing to probation or parole is to obey a set list of conditions. I don't see a problem with someone serving either of those being prohibited from possessing a firearm as unconstitutional, because you have to agree to them and are perfectly capable of refusing to do so.
Once someone's time has been fully served, their debt to society is paid in the eyes of the law, and they should have no restrictions.
And let's face it, if a convicted felon wants to get their hands on a gun to resume a life of crime, no prohibition is going to stop them. In some places it's actually easier for them to get a gun illegally than it is for a law abiding citizen to legally purchase one.
The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally protected liberties.
Boyd V. US 116 US 616.
Encroachment
Intrusion on a person's territory, rights, etc.
200 yrs ago, if a person commits a felony. Once released, they put a gun back on ...
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
WTF?
Committing a crime carries a time penalty. Why does the convicted felon get a life sentence way beyond the time served and restitution paid for the crime. It is based on the projection and assumption that a crime MAY BE committed in the future. No rational justification or justice is delivered here.
The constitution does not need interpretation.
Is it possible to have a felony removed for a DUI causing injury, this happened 25 years ago and the only charge on my 67 years record.
So you're saying that non violent felons may see their rights restore?
in the 1800s when someone got out of prison they were given a gun to protect themselves
In 3rd district Court of Appeals Range v Attorney General, Range was a felon and won this month hopefully this bs will change soon
I call B.S. The Constition is "clear" when it was written and the 2nd Amd. when near the end, "shall not be infringed" means you can't lose the right to bare arms. Example during the Vietnam war the government "enlisted convicted felons to go to war instead of prison" ( 2 tiered ) and when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution the reason they NEVER put except violent offenders is because they believe everyone should have the RIGHT to DEFEND there country from envaders, themselves, and if the GOVERNMENT got CORRUPT in any shape or form. Plus the Supreme Courts before it became Corrupt in 1939 and the United States of America went bankrupt to become the United States those justices never reconized any ruling after 1939 because every citizen became an enemy of the state in which is the birth of the UCC ( Uniform Commerical Code) in turn made the (United States) Corporation on doing COMMERCE hench all Cap names and social security numbers. Now if really gotta throw FACTS in "when Lincoln got the title War Commander to declare Martial Law he was suppose to give that title back to Congress and restore the power back to the people because martial law freezes the Constitution" some argue that you can only declare Martial Law once so to fool the people because this power and title gave a sitting president too much power they added "state of emergency". I can debate this with FACTS.
Non violent felons should be allowed own
What is amazing to me is an entity that has absolutely zero morals or decent virtues ie. Government somehow makes decisions about other people's virtues and morals. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
What gets me is my brother got caught with a single joint in 1989 at which time was a felony. That's 35 years ago but it still prevents him from owning a firearm as he is a convicted felon. Today that same thing is not even a misdemeanor.
Sorry but that is bullsh!t. He has no other crimes, worked in the same field for 30 years and raised 4 kids on his own
Denying a felon from exercising all his constitutional rights creates a 2nd class citizen. If I can't have my 2A rights the government should no be able to exercise the 16th over me. How do you think k that would go down in court
Exactly
If so, the term "law abiding gun owner " would become obsolete.
A well regulated militia has nothing to do with laws or legislation.
A well regulated militia means a well armed people with weapons that are in good working order.
Shoe me a State that has a militia that is not a part of the US government.. NOT!
No
I have a felony from 1994 and can’t protect my family haven’t been in trouble since it’s bullshit
If you fabricate your own Gunpowder Mass Accelerator and it does not require a serial number or considered a firearm could a felon possess non registered home-made gun?
How, at all, would this apply to the Domestic portion of the lifetime firearm ban?
Shall not, means, Shall NOT
Im aiming to make a challenge to the supreme court ruling that bars felons
What's the name of your intro music ?
It should only ban people who commit violent felonies while using a firearm.
Use a firearm irresponsibly, lose your right to use one.
NOT commit any random felony and lose an unrelated right.
ESPECIALLY in the case of possessing a firearm. Simply possessing a firearm in a place where it is not permitted means you lose your right to own a firearm FOREVER?! What a bunch of bs.
Where is it written
When did laws change for citizen don't get there right after serving there sentencing
*when anyone who DISAGREES with you is then labeled as a domestic terrorist and you're the one in power...who holds you accountable?*
*B.a.r. British Accreditation Registrar aka bar guild system similar to if not directly related to a subsidiary of the Freemasonry...depending on your degree.*
The only Americans that should be denied the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are those that are presently serving a prison sentence, awaiting a decision on an indictment, and those that are on parole for the same or like. Once a citizen has paid their debt back to society, IMO, their Rights (All of Them) should b!e reinstated. PERIOD
I've had a minute to think about what has been said. According to the founding fathers. The same men that committed treason against the King of England. Jolly old George. The same men that killed British soldiers. These men wrote the 2nd amendment at a time when it was encouraged to bring your firearm to church on Sunday. I think their definition of violent crime was different than what we call violent. Point in fact, a person can get into a fight with a total stranger. No major damage. 30 days misdemeanor. A fella could get quite a few of those before they are considered prohibited. Violent? You bet. Prohibited? Not a chance. But it doesn't take much to get rung up on some charges you don't have enough money to get out of. I'm not guilty of being violent, I'm guilty of being poor. And for the rest of my life, I will never forget it.
one thing pointed out is that at the founding a felony was a capital offense. over time the bar has dropped allowing crimes that even today are misdemeanors under federal law now classed as felonies in state law which ultimately results in more convicted felons in the country.
I have a question about this I have a felony for a assault does that mean that I can't get a even though I have been off of parole for 3 years and in new York I was just wondering if I could get my gun rights after 20 years I'm just wondering that's all please and thank you
They will give me the right to vote back but deny me the right to defend my life or lives of my family members.
I'm with U bro ! .... They want our services & our money but don't give a Damm about our lives ! That's some Tyranny sh*t
Im a ex felon for cannabis ciltivation in california befire it was leagal.
Im called a felon by the courts and lawenforcement .
Am i or woukd i be called a infraction or misdemeanor for the rest of my life if i had commited a misdemeanor or infraction???
I have a felony from 1992 for Possession of Narcotics, I did the time and got out in March 10th of 1995. I never ever looked back and been working ever since, How do I know if I do or don't have the right to bare Arms? I am currently working with an Attorney to help me get a Pardon from the Government
All people have a god giving right to protect theirselves and family and friends
What about after 10 years from the end of sentence and parole
After completing 10 years of parole my rights were returned to me although I'm not sure that included firearms, it has now been 30 years since I was released from parole with no new convictions for anything other than traffic violations. Is there a chance that I could purchase a firearm?
bill of pains and penalties (attainder)
Once a person is released from jail, they should retain all rights as an American citizen since they have “served their debt to society” and the lautenberg amendment should be struck down as well.
Infringed
Actively break the terms of,act so as to limit or undermine, encroach on.
ABRIDGE
Curtail (a right or privilege),to reduce in scope: diminish:deprive.