Q?: What is the constitutional basis for FELONS to be permanently stripped....?

[evadmurd]

What is the constitutional basis for FELONS to be permanently stripped of their constitutional rights, even after they have served the prescribed sentence for whatever crime they have committed? And by allowing this, how is it not stripping them of their inalienable, PRE-constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If this can be justified, how can we argue against the state taking away any of these rights from any of us at their discretion?

These questions begin to become very important in light of NDAA, SOPA, etc., IMO, and I'd like to hear some thoughts from our group.

 

[thoughtomator]

They shoudn't be. If a man can't be trusted with all his rights, letting him out of prison probably wasn't a good idea.

 

[kylejack]

Easy: There is no Constitutional right to vote, so states can make rules as they wish as long as they don't violate the Equal Protection Clause (no racism, sexism, etc.) or the poll tax amendment.

 

[kylejack]

Here are some For and Against arguments about the Constitionality of denying felons the vote: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=705

 

[Edward]

[ redacted ]

 

[evadmurd]

What about 2nd amendment rights?

 

[pcosmar]

What about 2nd amendment rights?

The question that brought me here.

Most states have a "restoration of rights". Some (many) it is automatic upon completion of sentence. Others have a process that you have to complete (you have to apply for it).

It seems to have been changed over the years to deny 2nd amendment across the board. And once you have had any contact with the system you are no longer eligible to serve on a jury. Anywhere,, Ever.

It's all very convoluted.

 

[tod evans]

Quite simply, once a person has been in the belly of the beast he is no longer permitted a vote toward beheading the beast, let alone the ability to arm himself in an attempt to fend it off.
Not being a constitutional scholar I'm not qualified to comment on the constitutionality of these sanctions.

 

[Enforcer]

They shoudn't be. If a man can't be trusted with all his rights, letting him out of prison probably wasn't a good idea.

The above quote says it all.

The typical LEO viewpoint that I hear all the time is that if you don't have a record, they just haven't caught you yet.

The thing is, for many crimes, you can pay your debt to society and then be denied your Second Amendment Rights which means that your Right to Life is jeopardized. That is why we must have a discussion regarding unalienable Rights.

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

OP addresses a personal problem I've had for a while: man does not give us rights. Our rights are inalienable. So by what authority does man have the right to take it away?

 

[Enforcer]

OP addresses a personal problem I've had for a while: man does not give us rights. Our rights are inalienable. So by what authority does man have the right to take it away?

You are incorrect. Rights are unalienable. There is a difference.

 

[Pericles]

There is no Constitutional basis for the loss of right to vote based on conviction for a felony - the only basis would be state constitutional basis, as the right to vote is established by the state government, not federal.

 

[RM918]

Easy. Felon = Bad Guy, Bad Guy = Not Human. All there is to it.

 

[Enforcer]

There is no Constitutional basis for the loss of right to vote based on conviction for a felony - the only basis would be state constitutional basis, as the right to vote is established by the state government, not federal.

While there is no Right to vote in a federal election, there is NO Right to vote. What you describe is a privilege. The government does not and cannot grant a Right. If a Right existed at the STATE level, it would exist at the FEDERAL level since Rights are not bestowed upon humans by government.

 

[onlyrp]

Constitutional rights are not unalienable rights, it's that simple.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Constitutional rights are not unalienable rights, it's that simple.

You're thinking of natural rights. Constitutional rights can be alienable (made alien) by being arrested or abandoning citizenship.

 

[The Beastly One]

The above quote says it all.

The typical LEO viewpoint that I hear all the time is that if you don't have a record, they just haven't caught you yet.

The thing is, for many crimes, you can pay your debt to society and then be denied your Second Amendment Rights which means that your Right to Life is jeopardized. That is why we must have a discussion regarding unalienable Rights.

Short answer: Yes, the law barring felons from guns after they have completed their sentence is unconstitutional and illegal. Not only that, but all you would have to do to fix the illegality is convince your governor, congressmen, and state representatives to repeal this unconstitutional law. Remeber two things. 1. The only felons listed in the constitution are the ones running for office, and a felon cannot hold certain public offices, and 2. All gun control is bad gun control, because if they can take my gun, it's only a matter of time till they get yours...

 

[LoneWolf]

The question that brought me here.

Most states have a "restoration of rights". Some (many) it is automatic upon completion of sentence. Others have a process that you have to complete (you have to apply for it).

It seems to have been changed over the years to deny 2nd amendment across the board. And once you have had any contact with the system you are no longer eligible to serve on a jury. Anywhere,, Ever.

It's all very convoluted.

I lost my 2nd amendment right when I pled guilty to a charge and was given first offenders act and probation. Once I completed my probation paid all fines etc..the state gave me back my rights but I still can not walk into a gun store or pawn shop and buy a weapon simply because the federal government has not given me my rights back. This was 6 years ago I pled guilty to it and 5 years since I paid off my fines and was let off probation..It is very frustrating to go through this...I remember trying to find out if my background check would be clear and went to buy a gun at a pawn shop. I was denied I left no big deal...less than 5 mins later I had come back that way a sheriff deputy was in there checking on who I was and why I was trying to get a gun! I was shocked. I wish I knew of some way to get my right to own a weapon back. I would like one for protection and would like my children to grow up knowing how to defend themselves and just growing up around guns like my wife did but I was not allowed to do.

 

[southernsontn]

According to the Supreme Court, in the decision of Richardson v. Ramirez, (418 U.S. 24 94 S. Ct. 2655, 41 L. Ed. 2d 551) the constitutional basis for disenfranchisement comes from the 14th amendment, specifically section 2. I personally disagree with this interpetation however, which I find to be a corrupt interpretation of a corrupt amendment. The problem lies in the fact that at the end of the day, The Supreme court will "interpret" the constitution however they need in order to suit political expediency. The 14th amendment (which has dubious origins to begin with) is one of the most misused constitutional articles, along with the "interstate commerce" clause and the supposed "general welfare" clause which have given impetus to the FEDs encroachments upon constitutional power.

 

[evadmurd]

Easy. Felon = Bad Guy, Bad Guy = Not Human. All there is to it.

So a one time felon of the likes of, say, Martha Stewart, is worse than someone with multiple misdemeanors of various violence? That is quite a collectivist statement.