Liquid Reigns
Silver Member
- Feb 7, 2016
- 1,318
- 116
- 95
- Banned
- #41
Arms are weapons, nothing more. Please point out where I stated anything about "arms" not being modern firearms. the felon is still allowed to own arms, i.e. a weapon or weapons, he is simply denied the ability to own a firearm, modern or whatever.The judges ruling doesn't force the feds to give him his right to own a firearm back, the judge is merely saying the feds should do as the sates are doing, granting the right to own/posses firearms back to non-violent felons. Doesn't matter what the judge specifically opined regarding what the govt needs to start doing (federal judges get overturned more often then not), the 2A merely recognizes the existing right to own "weapons as allowed by law" from the 1689 EBoR for the owning and possessing of arms, it doesn't grant a right to own firearms or anything else. A felon being denied the ability to own a firearm doesn't effect his right to self-protection nor his ability to own/posses arms, nor is his 2A right infringed.Some felons can get there 2A rights back when they are taken. SHRUGThe Govt could argue that his 2A right isn't denied, he is allowed to own arms, just can't own firearms. He can own a bow, airgun, knife, etc.
The right to own or posses arms comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in it is says "as allowed by law". Our earliest court cases recognized this which is why they said the right predates the Constitution. Certain weapons can be banned from entering the US, certain people can be banned from owning certain types of arms.
Some states do allow felons, dependent on the felony, to apply for their full constitutional protections to be reinstated.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fel...instated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
This case had to do with Federal law, not state law.
In some states that is true but that did not happen on the Federal level when convicted of a Federal crime, which is why the judge ruled as he did.
The beauty of the case is not a judge telling the Feds they need to do what most states do but the fact that he said very specifically that the government needs to start treating the right to keep and bears like the individual right that it is.
The judge also said:
This type of logical inconsistency shows that the Government is not taking the Second Amendment seriously. The Second Amendment has to mean something as a matter of law, policy debates aside. Overbroad policies ignoring a constitutional amendment are inexcusable.
That is admonishment to the filthy Federal government to stop stepping on our Constitutional rights. The best part of the ruling. I bet the filthy ass Feds won't appeal the case because they don't want the Supremes to rule on it.
As far as your point about "arms" not being modern firearms then that is a position that is simply too silly and too convoluted for me to waste my time responding to.
The point of modern firearms being protected under the Second Amendment was also address under the Heller case so that argument is not only silly but moot.
I never made any point about modern firearms, seems you are creating strawman arguments to knock down when there is no need to.
As to the judges opinion, that's all it is, his opinion, and whatever he claims regarding the policy in place, i.e. 18usc922 as the case was about, and its relation to non-violent felons has no bearing on the 2A, only Hatfields ability to regain the owning of a firearm for himself and those of like circumstance, non-violent felons that spent no time in prison.
In my opinion the judges opinion is poorly written and shows he didn't put much effort into it.
Last edited: