Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south ...

[GunShowOnTheNet]

"The right of self-defence NEVER ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]

[jmac]

Being a criminal...you lose your rights...not all of them, but if he was in jail for robbery..assault or other fed crimes...sorry, you are a criminal,(not that it would make a difference) but you are not allowed firearms!!!(but being a criminal, he/she most likely will NOT obey the law anyway) so the law is useless ( as they all are)

[GunShowOnTheNet]

jmac wrote:

Being a criminal...you lose your rights...not all of them, but if he was in jail for robbery..assault or other fed crimes...sorry, you are a criminal,(not that it would make a difference) but you are not allowed firearms!!!(but being a criminal, he/she most likely will NOT obey the law anyway) so the law is useless ( as they all are)

The whole point is that our government was EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes that specific Natural Right. NO ONE EVER loses the INALIENABLE right of self-defense/preservation. It forever belongs to: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

[jmac]

to the law abbiding citizen. to protect us from those who are not!!!

[Michael Ejercito]

If we can not trust felons with guns, then why are we allowing them to roam around freely? At the very least, they should be under probation or something.

[jmac]

Michael Ejercito wrote:

If we can not trust felons with guns, then why are we allowing them to roam around freely? At the very least, they should be under probation or something.

supposenly they are, under probation.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

- Thomas Paine, July, 1795, Dissertations on First Principles of Government.
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/06/d...

[Speeders are Murderers]

What we need to do is change the definition of a felony. Right now it's any crime for which you COULD (not did, but could) have gotten a year or more in prison. That is a very low bar and needs to be raised substantially.

[Speeders are Murderers]

jmac wrote:

to the law abbiding citizen. to protect us from those who are not!!!

HAHAHA. Don't give us that "law-abiding citizen" crapola. Ain't no such animal. Everybody drives drunk and speeds and runs red lights - super violent crimes that kill innocent people every day. There are no LACs in america.

Once you're released from prison, all rights should be restored.

[jmac]

Speeders are Murderers wrote:

<quoted text>
HAHAHA. Don't give us that "law-abiding citizen" crapola. Ain't no such animal. Everybody drives drunk and speeds and runs red lights - super violent crimes that kill innocent people every day. There are no LACs in america.
Once you're released from prison, all rights should be restored.

Ha HA HA Ha once you goto prison you are a loser...twice!!! makes you a complete loser....No you do not gets your rights...you forfieted them, we you do dumbazz things....twice!!!!
How long have you been out???

[Monty]

Speeders are Murderers wrote:

<quoted text>
HAHAHA. Don't give us that "law-abiding citizen" crapola. Ain't no such animal. Everybody drives drunk and speeds and runs red lights - super violent crimes that kill innocent people every day. There are no LACs in america.
Once you're released from prison, all rights should be restored.

So you have interviewed 'everybody'??

[GunShowOnTheNet]

jmac wrote:

<quoted text>Ha HA HA Ha once you goto prison you are a loser...twice!!! makes you a complete loser....No you do not gets your rights...you forfieted them, we you do dumbazz things....twice!!!!
How long have you been out???

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

- Jesus, Matthew 7:1,2

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Monty wrote:

<quoted text>
So you have interviewed 'everybody'??

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God..."

- Romans 3:23

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..."

- Romans 5:13

[Michael Ejercito]

Felons might as well challenge their imprisonment while they are at it.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Michael Ejercito wrote:

Felons might as well challenge their imprisonment while they are at it.

No, if someone commits a crime then they are worthy of being punished for it. However, they are not deserving of being punished perpetually. Once the lawfully imposed sentence is served, then the punishment is over. Anything else could very well be considered as "cruel and unusual punishment".

[CRB]

I can see where you are coming from on perpetual punishment and I can see where some felonies shouldn't necessarily bar you from firearm ownership but I don't believe that felons such as rapist, armed robbers, and murders should be given access to firearms due to the likelyhood of them doing the same or a simular crime over again. I know it is a little inconsitent with my general stance in favor of the Constitution but I do believe that the last thing we need to do is allow a rapist access to a firearm if he doesn't already have it on the black market.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

CRB wrote:

I can see where you are coming from on perpetual punishment and I can see where some felonies shouldn't necessarily bar you from firearm ownership but I don't believe that felons such as rapist, armed robbers, and murders should be given access to firearms due to the likelyhood of them doing the same or a simular crime over again. I know it is a little inconsitent with my general stance in favor of the Constitution but I do believe that the last thing we need to do is allow a rapist access to a firearm if he doesn't already have it on the black market.

- The TRUE cure for "rapists" is CASTRATION.

- The TRUE cure for "armed robbers" is TWENTY YEARS HARD LABOR.

- The TRUE cure for "murderers" is the DEATH PENALTY.

I guarantee that there would be an IMMEDIATE drop in crime if we returned to what WORKED in the past....

[jmac]

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

<quoted text>
"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
- Jesus, Matthew 7:1,2

sorry, not judging, twice convicted...most likely not a mistake...I do not want criminal scum having guns,,((although they will have them anyway)) ie the uselessness of gun laws...

[Highlander]

CRB wrote:

I can see where you are coming from on perpetual punishment and I can see where some felonies shouldn't necessarily bar you from firearm ownership but I don't believe that felons such as rapist, armed robbers, and murders should be given access to firearms due to the likelyhood of them doing the same or a simular crime over again. I know it is a little inconsitent with my general stance in favor of the Constitution but I do believe that the last thing we need to do is allow a rapist access to a firearm if he doesn't already have it on the black market.

Your remark is a non sequitur.

Since —as you admit that— felons will get their arms without having to contend with 'official matters,' then making the citizens beg for their rights is tantamount to making them criminals before the fact, merely that they are forbidden their rights by way of prior restraint.

The whole aim of making citizens beg is to create an artificial situation whereby the citizen is left completely defenseless and seeking relief from government.

From thence it then devolves to government to raise taxes —egregiously— in order to hire more police. But as we both ~should~ know, no matter how many police there are, the citizens will never be free of the criminals — NOT THAT THEY EVER WOULD HAVE BEEN.

What is left unremarked of is this: With more police, the greater the likelihood of even MORE attacks upon the citizen, because the police force is now polluted with the dregs of the community.

The whole idea of making the citizens BEG, is to reduce them to the least common denominator of the community: The criminals themselves.

With more police, there is that greater possibility of treating the citizens with utter contempt.

But then =THAT= is where the UK is at presently, correct?

[Highlander]

jmac wrote:

<quoted text>sorry, not judging, twice convicted...most likely not a mistake...I do not want criminal scum having guns,,((although they will have them anyway)) ie the uselessness of gun laws...

jmac,

THINK: You're asking for prior restraint upon the law abiding, merely that you don't want someone to possess arms —even though they WILL GET THOSE ARMS without so much as a nod and a wink from a local black market trader.

The WHOLE IDEA behind so-called 'gun-control' is to DISARM the law-abiding, and NOT to keep the bad actors from getting their arms.

REMEMBER:

— YOU can NEVER be safe

— NO man-made law has =EVER= stopped anything from happening

The very best >you< can do, is to prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Anything else is a wasted effort.