Is a Misdemeanor Sufficient Reason to Deny 2A rights?

[tacticool]

Nobody said anything about sending them anywhere; just kicking them out. There's a lot of international waters out there. I'm even charitable enough to give them a 6'x6' raft.

The recidivist BGs wore out their welcome in this society. Like Ameer said, where they live is their problem.

Or to put it another way, "You don't have to go home but you can't stay here."

[Purplehood]

Sorry. I was being practical.

[Katygunnut]

I think we could greatly simplify this whole exercise by tying 2A rights and voting rights. If you have the right to vote, then you have the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, I also do not think that everyone should have the right to vote. Felons should lose this right while they are incarcerated and for a suitable time thereafter (possibly forever depending on the felony). People that have been shown to be mentally unstable also should not have the right to vote. These people also should not have the RKBA.

I can allow for a VERY limited number of exceptions to this principle, but in general, I would like to see the same enthusiasm applied to ensuring 2A rights as we apply to ensuring voting rights. Maybe we could include an optional CHL application along with your drivers license application like we do for voter registration.

[ELB]

I think we could greatly simplify this whole exercise by tying 2A rights and voting rights. If you have the right to vote, then you have the right to keep and bear arms.

BAD IDEA.

Here's why:

...but in general, I would like to see the same enthusiasm applied to ensuring 2A rights as we apply to ensuring voting rights...

Using the long-standing, current standard for "enthusiasm" in "ensuring voting rights" would mean that Black Panthers and officially designated grievance groups, regardless of citizenship or actual loyalty to this country, would have their 2A rights vigorously protected, but that citizens of non-protected groups could have their 2A rights trampled at will by any local political body and the US DOJ Civil Rights division would have no interest in it.

No thanks.

2A and voting rights are different problems. Shackling one to the other will not help either of them.

[ELB]

Oh, and the story in the OP is not about whether a "misdemeanor" disqualifies one for firearms ownership. The FBI's stance is the guy committed a felony by Federal standards (something that can be punished by more than a year in jail), regardless of what the state called it. I think their position in this case, based on the particulars, is clearly thuggish government overreach to do so, but it is not really about misdemeanors, it is about whether this qualifies as a felony.

[Bullwhip]

Fair enough. Did it qualify as a felony back when it actually occurred - or are they applying a modern definition to it now?

Story said that back then there was no max sentence, so he could have got more than a year. That's how the feds have always defined a felony: can be punished with more than a year in prison.

[KD5NRH]

People that have been shown to be mentally unstable also should not have the right to vote.

But then who would replace the Democrats as the Party of the Puppet on the Other Hand?

[Doug.38PR]

NOTHING should prevent your 2nd Amendment right. Everybody has the RTKBA. If you are REALLY so dangerous that you shouldn't have a gun....then you shouldn't be out of jail (or nuthouse or hospital)....in fact you should probably be put down (if in need to be in jail).

[Doug.38PR]

I think we could greatly simplify this whole exercise by tying 2A rights and voting rights. If you have the right to vote, then you have the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, I also do not think that everyone should have the right to vote. Felons should lose this right while they are incarcerated and for a suitable time thereafter (possibly forever depending on the felony). People that have been shown to be mentally unstable also should not have the right to vote. These people also should not have the RKBA.

I can allow for a VERY limited number of exceptions to this principle, but in general, I would like to see the same enthusiasm applied to ensuring 2A rights as we apply to ensuring voting rights. Maybe we could include an optional CHL application along with your drivers license application like we do for voter registration.

I think those are good thoughts. But I don't think you can tie them together really. 1) voting is not a right (contrary to what most people think). Self defense is. You're right everybody shouldn't be allowed to vote. Not just criminals and nutcases though.
2) Here are people who ALWAYS have the RTKBA but should NOT be allowed to vote:

1) People who can't read or write
2) People who can't speak, understand or read English
3) People who don't pay taxes
4) People who can't pay a poll tax (yes I believe in them, and not for the race card reasons thrown around by liberal politicans)
5) People who are living off welfare or any public funds
6) Non-citizens who are here legally on a visa or for business
7) Depending on what state law says from state to state, anybody who hasn't lived in said state for more than a certain length of time
8) Even Naturalized Citizens (citizens who are not born here) probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.
9) People who can't demonstrate a certain level of historical and constitutional knowledge.


I realize most of these have been struck down by egalitarian courts and revolutionary "amendments" that believe America is a "democracy" where every warm body has the right to vote and it is somehow degrading to that person if they are not allowed to vote. But this is is more in line with republican virtues that the Founding Fathers and subsequent generations prior to the 1860s believed.
Anyway, above said people who cannot vote, still have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms because everyone has the right to self defense

[mgood]

If someone is dangerous and has been convicted of a crime, they should be locked up or deported.

Once someone has completed their sentence, I don't see any justification to deny their firearm rights, unless we also deny their rights to voting, religion, free speech, 4th/5th amendments, etc.

What ever happened to the saying "They paid their debt to society"?

Yeah, I have mixed feelings about denying 2A rights to felons even.
On the one hand, you break the rules, you lose some of your rights. Them's the rules we play by. Deal with it.
On the other hand, the person has been punished. "Paid his debt" and all that. If he's still considered dangerous, he should not be walking around free. If he's not, then maybe he should enjoy the same rights as the rest of us.

Should a sex offender be allowed to be a day care teacher after he served his time?

I believe in free markets so I think that should be up to the company running the day care.

I'm pretty much with this. Free markets. A day care probably won't hire a convicted sex offender. Most parents would be reluctant to send their children to a day care which employed a convicted sex offender. This situation will fix itself.

[Doug.38PR]

Should a sex offender be allowed to be a day care teacher after he served his time?

I believe in free markets so I think that should be up to the company running the day care.

I'm pretty much with this. Free markets. A day care probably won't hire a convicted sex offender. Most parents would be reluctant to send their children to a day care which employed a convicted sex offender. This situation will fix itself.

Sex offenders should be put down. They shouldn't be walking around EVER. If you're convicted of raping a woman (REALLY raping a woman) or molesting a child then you are an animal and should be executed.