Among the more predictable political rhythms in this country is the Second Amendment Two-Step: First there is a mass shooting or other horrific gun crime, followed by a proliferation of pontification promoting various bits of gun control legislation, all of which decry gun violence and promise to end such violence if only Americans would see the light and allow "common sense" gun control.
A clear sighted article Peter that was well worth a dip into the archives. I am agreement with all of it. So it is not even as devil’s advocate but in a genuine spirit of enquiry that I ask, what about felons? What about the currently incarcerated?
I can see the issue there is not just limited to 2A rights. Probably the answer is commonly known. Please dispel my ignorance.
What about felons? Do they lose their fundamental rights simply because they are felons?
No. They do not. They retain their fundamental rights, and Heller affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.
Is there language in the Constitution that says felons lose the right to keep and bear arms? I am unaware of any such language.
That's what the Constitution says.
Does society want felons to own firearms? Many in society do not.
There are legitimate concerns about mental health. Many if not all of the spree and mass shooters we have experienced going all the way back to Columbine had severe mental and emotional health issues. That was the origin of the so-called "red flag" laws.
Should the Constitution be amended? I personally do not favor altering the Second Amendment. The First and Second Amendment are the two categorical defenses of fundamental freedoms and I do not see any good coming from diluting them. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms conditions their right of free speech on the permit of the law, and censorship has flourished north of the border.
However, people do have the right to make the case for amending the Constitution to remove the right of felons to keep and bear arms, or to remove the rights of those with mental or emotional health issues to keep and bear arms. They have the right to make their case and people have the right to rebut that case. In an ideal Constitutional society, that is what should happen.
What we should stop doing, what we have done too much and too often, is ignore the plain text of the Constitution. If the Constitution does not empower government to do a thing, we need to understand that government is prohibitied from doing that thing. No matter how attractive that might be in the moment, neither Congress nor the government as a whole ever has leave to act in ways not fully in accordance with the Constitution.
Every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
Every act of government repugnant to the Constitution is void.
Every ruling by the Supreme Court repugnant to the Constitution is void.
That should be our baseline understanding of the Constitution in all its particulars.
I would like to see more such laws enacted, and full National Reciprocity.
But even beyond that I argue that all laws which aspire to regulate firearms are un-Constitutional and therefore void. There is simply no language in the Constitution which can be considered explicit enough to supersede the Second Amendment's clear and unquivocal language, which Scalia defended for the most part in Heller.
We The People are free to arm ourselves however we see fit.
Correct! The night after the accident at a meeting place on campus with a large boulder, someone had spray painted...save lives allow us to carry on campus. Most of these shooting have taken place in gun free zones. I believe that studies show that in states where open carry is allowed these types of crimes go down. I think that it is something to think about. If we are serious about protecting people.
live in Lansing and the killer committed suicide a mile and a half from my house. Here are my thoughts. First, he had a previous gun possession charge in 2019 for carrying a loaded weapon without a license. Our progressive prosecutor reduced the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor because of racism or something. The felony charge would have kept him from legally purchasing a firearm. Also, MSU is a gun free zone and the shooter had a history of mental health problems. Maybe instead of gun control, we should discuss the other issue that many of these shooters have in common, metal health issues. Maybe we need to consider reopening mental health facilities for the good of everyone, both the patient and society.
At a minimum, a focus on mental health offers more productive avenues of discussion, and therefore a greater potential for crafting a societal response that is actually effective.
The empirical reality of pursuing gun control legislation is that it has not achieved a less violent or less toxic society.
A clear sighted article Peter that was well worth a dip into the archives. I am agreement with all of it. So it is not even as devil’s advocate but in a genuine spirit of enquiry that I ask, what about felons? What about the currently incarcerated?
I can see the issue there is not just limited to 2A rights. Probably the answer is commonly known. Please dispel my ignorance.
What about felons? Do they lose their fundamental rights simply because they are felons?
No. They do not. They retain their fundamental rights, and Heller affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.
Is there language in the Constitution that says felons lose the right to keep and bear arms? I am unaware of any such language.
That's what the Constitution says.
Does society want felons to own firearms? Many in society do not.
There are legitimate concerns about mental health. Many if not all of the spree and mass shooters we have experienced going all the way back to Columbine had severe mental and emotional health issues. That was the origin of the so-called "red flag" laws.
Should the Constitution be amended? I personally do not favor altering the Second Amendment. The First and Second Amendment are the two categorical defenses of fundamental freedoms and I do not see any good coming from diluting them. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms conditions their right of free speech on the permit of the law, and censorship has flourished north of the border.
However, people do have the right to make the case for amending the Constitution to remove the right of felons to keep and bear arms, or to remove the rights of those with mental or emotional health issues to keep and bear arms. They have the right to make their case and people have the right to rebut that case. In an ideal Constitutional society, that is what should happen.
What we should stop doing, what we have done too much and too often, is ignore the plain text of the Constitution. If the Constitution does not empower government to do a thing, we need to understand that government is prohibitied from doing that thing. No matter how attractive that might be in the moment, neither Congress nor the government as a whole ever has leave to act in ways not fully in accordance with the Constitution.
Every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
Every act of government repugnant to the Constitution is void.
Every ruling by the Supreme Court repugnant to the Constitution is void.
That should be our baseline understanding of the Constitution in all its particulars.
Nobody in Oklahoma is asking 'questions'. The 2A is settled ~ 📜Constitutional Carry. The only real push is for National Reciprocity. 🎯😌🔔🇺🇲
"Constitutional Carry" became the law in Oklahoma in 2019, when House Bill 2597 took effect, having been passed in February of that year.
https://oklahoma.gov/governor/newsroom/newsroom/2019/february/governor-kevin-stitt-signs-legislation-to-establish-constitution.html
I would like to see more such laws enacted, and full National Reciprocity.
But even beyond that I argue that all laws which aspire to regulate firearms are un-Constitutional and therefore void. There is simply no language in the Constitution which can be considered explicit enough to supersede the Second Amendment's clear and unquivocal language, which Scalia defended for the most part in Heller.
We The People are free to arm ourselves however we see fit.
Heller was Epic! 🇺🇲📜⚖️
Correct! The night after the accident at a meeting place on campus with a large boulder, someone had spray painted...save lives allow us to carry on campus. Most of these shooting have taken place in gun free zones. I believe that studies show that in states where open carry is allowed these types of crimes go down. I think that it is something to think about. If we are serious about protecting people.
live in Lansing and the killer committed suicide a mile and a half from my house. Here are my thoughts. First, he had a previous gun possession charge in 2019 for carrying a loaded weapon without a license. Our progressive prosecutor reduced the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor because of racism or something. The felony charge would have kept him from legally purchasing a firearm. Also, MSU is a gun free zone and the shooter had a history of mental health problems. Maybe instead of gun control, we should discuss the other issue that many of these shooters have in common, metal health issues. Maybe we need to consider reopening mental health facilities for the good of everyone, both the patient and society.
At a minimum, a focus on mental health offers more productive avenues of discussion, and therefore a greater potential for crafting a societal response that is actually effective.
The empirical reality of pursuing gun control legislation is that it has not achieved a less violent or less toxic society.