No, I posted that gun laws that fit within the Heller guidelines were fine and you posted that they were being overturned "And all of those are being peeled back, one by one. People are fighting against any and all gun legislation, and successfully getting it overturned. They are doing so on the basis of “Shall not be infringed”." That was false. No gun laws that fit within the Heller guidelines have been overturned.
The "assault weapons’ that have been banned have been banned due to certain features, usually Semi-auto, a extended magazine, and certain cosmetic features such as a bayonet lug. The courts have upheld these bans. They effect very few weapons.
Because that would ban half of the guns in the USA, rather than a tiny %.
The courts seem to be Ok with banning small pools of rarely used guns and not with broad over-reaching bans.
I appreciate that the courts are more willing to uphold bans of small groups of weapons than large, the question is why.
Is it because the Constitution allows for a ban of weapons with certain features (bayonet lug, full auto, sawed off barrel), but does not allow for a ban on different features like semi-auto? If this is the case, what is the legal reasoning? Your earlier post mentioned ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons, which is pretty fuzzy to begin with, and laughable when you think about banning ‘dangerous weapons’. Every handgun made in the last century can be used by a 4 year old to kill a full grown man, if that’s not a dangerous weapon, I don’t know what is.
Whether or not something is popular shouldn’t be a factor in determining the legality of banning it.
Apparently you did not bother to read my clarification in a subsequent post, nor have you read any of my other posts elsewhere on the topic.
Yes, after an extended period of time of not getting into trouble folks should be able to apply for full restoration of civil rights. In fact, they can do that now - but I would like to see that more routine and cheaper for people to do.
As for “lies to the FBI”, what you do mean? Lie to aid and abet a violent crime? Lie when asked what you had for dinner last night?
Sorry, I don’t memorize what other people say in all their posts.
And I would agree that if sentenced to probation, then the terms of that probation should have to be over, and then rights should be automatically restored, without the person having to do anything.
In my non-lawyer understanding, any lie you tell to the FBI can be cause to charge you with a felony. If that is not the case, then just substitute some other non-violent felony instead, say, using a cheating device while playing Blackjack at a Las Vegas casino.
Gee, I dunno - people who murder and rape probably should have to do a little extra to get all their civil rights back. Something like insider trading? Maybe ban them from the internet or stock market, but I’m not that worried about them going on a shooting spree. Sure, for non-violent felonies I’d be open to making the restoration automatic.
I think the restrictions should fit the crime. If you’re violent you get restrictions to limit the damage you might cause with future violence. If you commit a financial felony then you get your ability to cause financial mayhem restricted. Rinse and repeat.
Ok, but you decide which rights those are? Do people that murder and rape lose their right to unlimited search and seizure? Do you think that those people should be forced to quarter soldiers? How do you decide which rights they should lose?
There is a long-established customary list of rights kept or not kept for such cases.
The answer is no, they don’t lose protection against search-and-seizure, and no one has to quarter soldiers. If a judge issues a gag order on the crime as part of the sentence to that limited extent their right to free speech is “lost” but they keep it for everything else.
And no, I don’t get to decide it, there are professionals called “judges” who get to decide that, whose decisions can be re-examined by other judges if there is a question of whether or not a sentence is just.