Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« "gun guys" on the UN | Main | "How a gun-hating family from Billerica produced an Olympic shooter." »

Heller and felons

Posted by David Hardy · 22 July 2008 08:33 AM

Don Kates has an article in the NY Post on the topic.

· prohibitted persons

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim | July 22, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply

"Unfortunately, modern legislatures have added a host of trivial felonies. For instance, in California an 18-year-old girl who has oral sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend has committed a felony. The courts should rule that conviction of such a trivial felony can't deprive such a "felon" of her right to arms."


This is my issue with the felon in possession laws. If you bounce a check for $1,000, you're a felon. A felony is not what it used to be, any more than a million bucks is not what it used to be.


To play devil's advocate for just a minute, even the most violent of felons don't lose their 4th Amendment rights and a host of other rights once they are set free by liberal parole boards. In many states they even get to vote again. So, how is the 2nd Amendment right distinguished from the 4th and these others?

David M. McCleary | July 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply

an interesting article on this issue is at:

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3130

well done

Carl in Chicago | July 22, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply

It's a balancing act, and a contentious one. For sure, there are many acts for which you can receive a felony but not represent a physical danger to others around you (drug possession comes to mind). In other words, some felonies just shouldn't be.

But .... do/should "serious" felons/criminals (e.g. violent ones) have ALL the rights of other Americans? Do illegal immigrants have ALL the rights of other Americans? Do legal immigrants (but non-US citizens) have ALL the rights of other Americans? Which rights to they have, and which rights have they not? How to decide?

At the founding, were dangerous criminals and non-citizens alike considered to be exactly the same as other Americans in rights and priviledges? I think not ... I think that dangerous criminals were considered hideous animals and were killed pretty much straightaway. It's called criminal control, something for which we have little stomach for, anymore, in this day and age of violent felons cycling through our "justice" system.

I don't know ... I am pretty Libertarian in my thinking, but OTOH it also seems pretty sure to me that violent criminals have too damn many rights and priviledges in our country. Finally, then, how shall they be reformed if they have all the rights and priviledges as all the rest of us? In some ways, natural selection itself should be removing those violent/predatory ones from society.

David M. McCleary | July 22, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply

more on th esubject

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080721/BLOG2503/80721071/1068/opinion

David E. Young | July 22, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply

Dave,

Do you remember meeting Justice Scott of the Kentucky Supreme Court in Loisville?

I just checked for the case Justice Scott mentioned, his dissent in Posey vs Commonwealth. It was decided Februrary 23, 2006. His dissent goes into this very subject for anyone who might be interested further.

David M. McCleary | July 22, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply

link please

thanks

David E. Young | July 22, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply

The url for Posey vs Commonwealth, which is a pdf file, is:

http://162.114.92.72/Opinions/2004-SC-000060-DG.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=1526&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=9&hits=22+23+24+1809+180a+180b+1cd7+1cd8+1cd9+&hc=174&req=february+23%2C+2006

Leave a comment