What kind of data numbers do you have to support this argument?
@mat55a . Actually, your argument presupposes a restriction. The Militia Act of 1972 specified "free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45”. That in itself is a restriction against women and those below or over that age range. It was also a restriction for non-whites, and has to be corrected by the Militia Act of 1862. Further there are some restriction on the 1972 version for “military officers only”, not military personnel or military peer. So having to ensure one can shoot the guns they have is not a true, permanent restriction. I still can’t shout “fire” inside a theater until now, if there is none.
The issue here is that unlike today, they didn’t keep criminals like that around. They were shot or hung. We didn’t preserve wrong then like we do now.
Thanks for the input, Dannil. Actually, the classification of “militiamen” in the Militia Act of 1792 is just a limited subset of the broader classification used in the text of the Second Amendment – “the People”. The People certainly included women and free blacks … and it also included folks with prior criminal records. My point in highlighting the 1792 militia act was simply to show that the mentality of the time in 1792 did not single out men with a past criminal history when Congress promulgated a contemporaneous law mandating gun ownership by a significant portion of the population. The material point is that the authors of the Second Amendment certainly knew the words “law-abiding” and “felon” and “responsible citizen”, etc,… but they never included such terms in any gun rights enactment of the day or in the Second Amendment. It was 1938 before you find a federal law limiting Second Amendment rights. The current test for constitutionality of any disarmament law requires the government to prove there was a “history and tradition” of disarming such people contemporaneous with the adoption of the Second Amendment. (Heller, McDonald, Bruen, Rahimi). So, the existence of a contemporaneous law that actually mandated gun ownership by a subset of “The People” without carving out an exclusion for men with a prior criminal records, is powerful evidence that there was no pre-1792 “history or tradition” of permanently disarming criminals who had paid their debt to society and were “free”. By the way, your suggestion that the government has imposed restrictions on other fundamental rights actually highlights one of my issues when dealing with limitations on gun rights. The federal government is not divine. God never told Moses “let there be government.” Governments are established by the collective action of the people who wish to create them. Hence, the government is subordinate to the dictates of the People, and its power is derived from their compact setting forth the powers and restriction adopted by the people. The government is powerless to expand its own power or authority beyond that which was ordained by the people – although there has always been a tug of war between the government (seeking greater power) and the people (challenging government actions that are ultra vires). And, just because a government gets away with enacting a law that exceeds its authority, that never alters the underlying balance. No matter how many times a person robs a 7-11, its always illegal. And that is where we are in the federal felon-in-possession debate. There was no tug of war over gun rights in this country for 150 years…because the government never sought to impose restriction on gun ownership until 1938. It is immutable that every prohibition in the Bill of Rights survives any attempt by the government to limit it. The tail does not wag the dog. Moreover, the framers in their wisdom actually established a formal procedure for changing any provision in the Constitution – called the amendment process – and not once has anyone ever tried to adopt an amendment imposing limitations on the right of non-violent prior criminals to keep and bear arms. Instead, anti-gun advocates have tried to short circuit the constitution by pleading their case to a politically biased federal judge and getting an unconstitutional ruling disarming some group of The People.
This is where we stand today. There is a split among the federal circuits regarding the constitutionality of a life-time ban on gun possession by conspicuously non-violent people convicted of crimes with a range of punishment exceeding a year. The book, “Why Can’t Marth Stewart Have a Gun” raises this issue. Today, the leading case on point is Range v. The Attorney General of the United States, out of the Third Circuit and undergoing GVR by the Supreme Court. When the current AG is replaced by a conservative in January, we may see significant reform of the entire disarmament law - 18 USC 922(g).
1 Like
There cannot be a “lifetime” ban on owning a firearm. I was convicted of a felony nearly 30 years ago (no weapon or violence involved) and still cannot own ANY firearm to protect my home, my family, to hunt. I did my time, did ALL that was asked of me, have a spotless record since. There has to be a way. NO GUN LAW WILL STOP A CRIMINAL.
1 Like
I got in some trouble when i was younger, but it wasnt a felony, but was ordered to not have any guns by the judge. 10 or so years later i read that i could get my gun rights back as long as i went 5 years without having nothing on my record, i hired a lawyer that does those type of cases and i had my gun rights reinstated. It was only $1000 for the lawyer. I believe it also said non violent felonies qualify too. I live in washington state and dont know if thats a state to state law or nation wide but it would be worth it to google your state.and ask if you can get your rights back legally
Completely correct. The problem is the people who choose violence, not what they choose as the weapon. We need to deal with the violent people as they commit crimes and this does NOT mean locking them up for life to serve as teachers in jail for the next bunch. The issue is that people don’t go to jail to learn what they did wrong, rather how not to get caught next time.
1 Like
Yes, I’ve checked up on this here in my state, which is Michigan, and the only thing I couldn’t find info on was whether after doing all of that, if I could even pass a NICS background check and buy a gun because of the federal law.
Well i was able to pass it. Mlawyer said that there might be some longer delays, as long as the fbi does their job properly you should pass. It cant hurt to try.
1 Like
You need to make this as an original post for vote. This is well-written and simple, even comprehensible.
1 Like
Not sure I know how to do that…my first day here. I’ll try to figure it out.
Further to #6, there should be no additional requirements (registration) or waiting period for SBRs or suppressors. It’s ridiculous that it takes months (sometimes even years!) for a citizen to receive these items after payment is made. Even more unconscionable that we must register these items with the government. NO MORE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OR DELAYS UPON PURCHASE!!!
1 Like
I will not look at other countries for guidance. Especially countries that suppress their citizens’ (subjects’) self defense right. Big No. Other countries with supposed “low incidence” of gun related violence have high incidence of knife violence, andother forms. The US’s supposed “high” incidence of violence is skewed since it includes accidental dischage, negligent dischare, suicide (this one is perhaps arguable) and self-defense.
@mat55a I believe you missed my point. And it is this simply: there are restrictions. Whether you and I agree on said restrictions is another thing. But there are. And the milita act of 1972 showed that. We would have to agree to disagree with this one.
Moving on. One can argue, and I heard this argument before, (and again, you and me may disagree with this), but there is an argument that states that whatever the government does is due and borne by consent of the governed, by the very act that the so-called representatives are elected by the people (barring any cheating, of course). Two polarizing topics of our time: (1) abortion and (2) guns. One may say that the governed, having cast the most (or more) votes towards a candidate based on stated proposed policies, had givent their consent to that representative for him/her to do that which he/she said he/she would do.
Happy Thanksgiving. I enjoyed your argument. 
Our representatives are our voice, as long as it is within the constitution, thats why they take an oath to defend it not try to undermine it.
And a Happy Thanksgiving back to you.
I believe our disagreement lies in your fundamental misunderstanding of the organizing principles of our constitutional government. No act of Congress can expand the governing authority granted or restricted by the Constitution. In other words, the power of the government is inferior to the creation authority of the People. Hence, when the People have unequivocally prohibited the government from enacting an entire class of criminal laws, the government has no power to override that prohibition… and no amount of government disobedience of that prohibition can ever negate the authority of the People and the Constitution. You, however, seem to believe that the government can grant itself the power to override the Constitution. Once we agree to that, our Representative Republic is doomed.
You are confusing the fact that government routinely enacts statutes that exceed its authority. In law, such actions are deemed “ultra virse” … or “without authority”. Unfortunately, such prohibited enactments occur all the time, but repeated abuse of authority does not alter the fundamental equation – i.e. The People create the Government, and inherent in the power to create the government is the power to impose limitations on the actions of that government.
The Second Amendment is such a limitation. And its beyond debate that the 27 words in the Second Amendment do not grant the government permission to ignore the mandate – “shall not be infringed”. Nevertheless, the federal government (and many state governments) enacted an array of criminal statutes effectively forbidding hundreds of thousands of American citizens from exercising their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. None of the limitations imposed by 18 USC 922(g) are authorized by the text of the Second Amendment, and no valid attempt to amend the Second Amendment has ever been initiated. That is what I most fervently object to. The People who voted to ratify the Constitution never granted authority to a federal district judge to abridge the Second Amendment by a simple bang of his gavel. The amendment process is arduous by design. A society can’t function when the rights of the People can be altered or dismissed on a whim or caprice by a politically motivated single individual.
As for your notion that every government action is actually an act of the People, that Stalin-esque reasoning is unsupported by any rational examination of the history of democratic organizations. You have essentially stood the concept of constitutional government on its head. You would have the tail wag the dog. Let me recommend to you a course offered by Prager Institute entitled, “Understanding the Constitution 101”. Understanding the Constitution 101 | PragerU
[
Understanding the Constitution 101 PragerU
Sign up for free access to PragerU’s Understanding the Constitution 101 video series and receive a PragerU speci…
](Understanding the Constitution 101 | PragerU)
We live in a most dangerous time these days. As an old war fighter with two tours in Vietnam and two tours to NATO, I am keenly aware of the current reality. We live under the sword of Damocles. The fate of the world rests right now with the decisions just one of three individuals might make at any moment - Putin, Xi, Kim Jong Un, and our lame duck Joe Biden. If you need a great example of what can happen when society reposes too much discretionary authority in a single person, today is a great day to observe that bankrupt policy in action. Our Constitution is the blueprint for sustained stability. We abuse it at our peril.
There is an old Chinese curse … “May you live in interesting times.” The world situation today is the most “interesting” I have encountered in my 78 years. Experience has taught me to put my trust right now in the written will of the people of America … and not in the hands of the most biased, unamerican politicians I have known in all my days.
I admire the fact that you put thought into our national debate. Too damn many Americans these days act like lemmings brainlessly following the latest trend or celebrity bellowing. Well, the next four years ought to be “interesting” if nothing else.
Stay safe and happy,
JDS
That constitution 101 and the whole course is awsome, i went through it and probably should do it again, its been awhile.
Hi Robert,
I’m a constitutional litigator, and sadly, I can tell you that most of our federal district judges also need to take the Prager course. Thanks for the kind remarks.
J. Stone
1 Like
Where in the Constitution does it say you have rights unless the government says so? The rights are NOT of the government, but from God. They are not for government to grant or take away. That is clear as day in our Constitution. When someone commits a crime, does the time and pays their restitution, their debt to society is paid.