Felons and the Right to Bear Arms

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jun 22, 2006.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    250
    63
    Check out this new Kentucky Supreme Court decision in which the dissent argues that felons should be allowed the right to keep and bear arms:

    http://162.114.92.72/Opinions/2004-SC-0 ... &req=posey

    There is some great constitutional debate (Kentucky, not U.S.) in which the legislators are saying that a right to bear arms "for self defense" is nowhere near broad enough, that it ought to be "for any purpose he pleases, so long as he does not conceal it."

    It is a great read if you have time.
     
  2. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    I agree that felons should NOT lose the right to self defense.

    If they are fit to walk among us, they deserve to exercise the most basic of human rights.

    If they can't be trusted with a gun or a ballot, they need to be back in prison.
     

  3. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
  4. Recon4Life2

    Recon4Life2 New Member

    13
    0
    0
    I agree, I mean isn't the only reason felons are let out is because they've been "reformed". If they can't be trusted, then why are they out of jail?
     
  5. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    36
    With bills in the legislature to make carrying in a city park a felony, the criminalization of America is almost complete. If everyone were convicted of every felony committed, no one would be allowed to vote.

    I agree with the posters above.
     
  6. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,122
    71
    48
    Sex Offenders

    The issue of what rights the government can take away from someone NOT directly as part of their sentence, but rather as a non-punitive public safety measure that can be applied ex post facto, is likely to come up in the appellate courts of this state pretty soon, over the new leglislation passed about "sex offenders" and where they can and cannot live.

    The newspaper reports that a new law that takes effect July 01, 2006 requires all people who are "registered sex offenders" to not live within 1000 feet of any school, church, park, arcade, bus stop, etc. Many liberal / libertarian organizations and politicians have looked at the maps and drawn the circles and publicly announced that this makes virtually every community, city, town, and village in Georgia off-limits. These people will be forced to live in trailer homes out in the woods on in farmhouses in very rural, agricultrual areas.

    This law applies retroactively to anybody who has been declared a sex offender in the last 10 years, even though that person's prior list of restrictions and conditions as a "sex offender" did not have such a long list of places that were off-limits to reside at.

    Keep in mind that "sex offender registration" is mandated either for life or for 10 years after the person is otherwise totally free from supervision-- they're not incarcerated, not on parole, and not on probation. And yet the law imposes a registration duty on them for at least 10 more years, and now it's not just registration, but banishment from all developed areas.

    P.S. I'm not real sympathetic to child molesters, but keep in mind that most (probably 99%) of all sex offenders are friends / relatives to the victim, not stranger-on-stranger encounters. The stereotypical "dirty old man" in a trench coat loitering near a school yard, offering candy to little kids if they will just get into his car is largely a myth, an urban legend. The real danger comes from the kid's father, uncle, and mom's new boyfriend, and the location of the molestation is most likely to be the kid's own bedroom. Therefore, this new law can be expected to be completely ineffective at protecting people, unless the intent is just to set up unrealistic conditions that nobody will comply with, the violation of which will send them to prison for another several years.