Supreme Court / Right to Keep & Bear Arms

[control-z]

@Little Nemo

A hypothetical question for Second Amendment supporters. How would you feel if gun ownership was an assumed right but not an irrevocable right? In other words, every citizen would be presumed to have the right to own guns. But a means would exist for some individuals to lost that right. I’m thinking of a due process procedure where a person would be told the reasons why he was losing his right to bear arms and would have the opportunity to defend himself. And it would be applicable on an individual basis; no law could call for any group to lose their gun rights on a collective basis.

There is already something like this, if you are a convicted felon you lose the right to own a gun. Of course this restriction doesn’t bother criminals since they don’t obey laws anyway.

[Lumpy]

@Little Nemo

A hypothetical question for Second Amendment supporters. How would you feel if gun ownership was an assumed right but not an irrevocable right? In other words, every citizen would be presumed to have the right to own guns. But a means would exist for some individuals to lost that right. I’m thinking of a due process procedure where a person would be told the reasons why he was losing his right to bear arms and would have the opportunity to defend himself. And it would be applicable on an individual basis; no law could call for any group to lose their gun rights on a collective basis.

Isn’t that pretty much already the case, that anyone who has been convicted of a felony can be denied the further right to possess a gun? Or were you thinking more of a civil hearing that declares that John Brown has shown himself to be a reckless moron, and that he shouldn’t be allowed to possess deadly implements?

I doubt that second scenerio would happen. First of all, laws are how the authority of the state is implemented, and citizens have well-established rights to demand that it be proven they’ve broken the letter of a law before being denied life, liberty, etc. Think of how automobile licenses are handled. My 89 year-old nearly blind mother could retain her drivers license indefinitely provided she did not commit a violation of the traffic laws.

I vaguely recall a case not too long ago where a man challenged the right of the court to summarily strip him of his handgun license as part of a domestic protection order. He claimed it violated due process, since he had broken no laws.

Now another matter: some of the posts upthread imply that the court could simply narrowly address the unreasonableness of D.C.'s permit system. But didn’t the ruling being appealed explicitly invoke the 2nd, and therefore the SC must answer that?

[UltraVires]

@Lumpy

Isn’t that pretty much already the case, that anyone who has been convicted of a felony can be denied the further right to possess a gun? Or were you thinking more of a civil hearing that declares that John Brown has shown himself to be a reckless moron, and that he shouldn’t be allowed to possess deadly implements?

While **Little Nemo ** can speak for himself, I assumed the latter, which I would oppose. I have no problem with a set of reasonable, defined instances in which a person can be denied the right to bear arms. When you are convicted and sentence to prison you have several rights and freedoms taken from you when you are locked up. Guns should be no different, but we should have a “make the rules up as we go along” approach where somebody comes up with some hackeneyed reason as to why I shouldn’t have a gun, and then I have to pay a lawyer to defend myself.

@Lumpy

I doubt that second scenerio would happen. First of all, laws are how the authority of the state is implemented, and citizens have well-established rights to demand that it be proven they’ve broken the letter of a law before being denied life, liberty, etc. Think of how automobile licenses are handled. My 89 year-old nearly blind mother could retain her drivers license indefinitely provided she did not commit a violation of the traffic laws.

Yes, but your driver’s license isn’t a right. Maybe it should be, but that’s another thread. Just because your 89 year old mother can still drive is a result of the benevolence of the state, and it could be taken away tomorrow. I feel that gun rights are more basic and deserve a higher level of protection.

@Lumpy

I vaguely recall a case not too long ago where a man challenged the right of the court to summarily strip him of his handgun license as part of a domestic protection order. He claimed it violated due process, since he had broken no laws.

And he lost. Emerson v. United States

@Lumpy

Now another matter: some of the posts upthread imply that the court could simply narrowly address the unreasonableness of D.C.'s permit system. But didn’t the ruling being appealed explicitly invoke the 2nd, and therefore the SC must answer that?

As I said, I can see Kennedy crafting a say-nothing majority opinion which rules only on the strictest of points brought up in this case, much like the Circuit Court did. The Circuit Court overruled the District in its refusal to issue handgun permits, and not allow people to keep loaded guns in their homes and carry them from room to room.

Not exactly groundbreaking for the rest of the country, as in Florida I can get a fully carry permit with a minimum of effort. (And I have) That is what I want to see the SCOTUS address: If I have the right to keep AND BEAR arms, then why do I need special permission from the state of Florida to “bear” my “arm” (Glock 19) in public?

But thanks to the Kennedy swing vote, we won’t get that far…

[foolsguinea]

@brazil84

My predictions are:

First, the Court will not squarely adopt a sweeping NRA-style interpretation of the Second Amendment. As much as I would like them to, it’s just too out-there politically. I just can’t see them telling NYC that it has to let everyone pack.

Yeah, I don’t think they’re that daft. But if they did, we’d get to relearn why gun control laws were passed in the first place. It’s pretty hard to police any city of over a million even when the police are allowed to confiscate weapons.

[Little_Nemo]

Isn’t that pretty much already the case, that anyone who has been convicted of a felony can be denied the further right to possess a gun? Or were you thinking more of a civil hearing that declares that John Brown has shown himself to be a reckless moron, and that he shouldn’t be allowed to possess deadly implements?

Personally, I’d be somewhere in between. But I believe the NRA is opposed to even the former position. I think their position is that they’re reluctantly willing to concede that currently incarcerated prisoners cannot carry guns but they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony.

[Polycarp]

My guess on their opinion matches Mr Moto’s, back in post #3.

The one thing I will predict is that the decision will be narrowly tailored to the specific case – that is, it will apply to D.C. (and presumably the territories), not to any state.

[Bricker]

@Little Nemo

Personally, I’d be somewhere in between. But I believe the NRA is opposed to even the former position. I think their position is that they’re reluctantly willing to concede that currently incarcerated prisoners cannot carry guns but they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony.

Blatantly and utterly wrong. As a Lifetime NRA member, I assure you that the NRA’s position is that while the government should not interfere with any law-abiding citizen’s private decision to own (or not to own) a firearm, they also believe that NON-law-abiding citizens – felons – especially felons convicted of violent crimes – should have their right to own a firearm removed.

Where in heaven’s name did you hear the opposite??

[brazil84]

@foolsguinea

Yeah, I don’t think they’re that daft. But if they did, we’d get to relearn why gun control laws were passed in the first place.

Whether gun control laws “work” is probably better addressed in a different thread. In my opinion, the answer to this question is pretty clear.

[Liberal]

@Bricker

Blatantly and utterly wrong. As a Lifetime NRA member, I assure you that the NRA’s position is that while the government should not interfere with any law-abiding citizen’s private decision to own (or not to own) a firearm, they also believe that NON-law-abiding citizens – felons – especially felons convicted of violent crimes – should have their right to own a firearm removed.

Where in heaven’s name did you hear the opposite??

Probably either the Daily Kos or Salon, depending on when it was heard. Kos is the new chic leftwing-nut Source Of All Truth, having displaced Salon sometime in the recent nebulous past.

[BobLibDem]

@control-z

If they’re going by the Constitution, then:

The militia part is antiquated these days. But to me the last part “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is crystal clear.

Not to everyone. I interpret “the people” to be the collective people assembled in a well-regulated militia.

It’s anyone’s guess as to what the Supremes will do. I’d bet on some mealy-mouth half-ruling designed to deliver an issue to the GOP for the fall election.

[Czarcasm]

I’m curious. What laws do the NRA support to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, as opposed to laws punishing said felons after they’ve already acquired said firearms?

[DMC]

@Liberal

Probably either the Daily Kos or Salon, depending on when it was heard. Kos is the new chic leftwing-nut Source Of All Truth, having displaced Salon sometime in the recent nebulous past.

Or perhaps the U.S. Code:

A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Attorney General may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further operations under his license pending final action on an application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor.

[Mr.Moto]

@Czarcasm

I’m curious. What laws do the NRA support to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, as opposed to laws punishing said felons after they’ve already acquired said firearms?

The NRA supported the establishment of the instant check system, which replaced the Brady Bill-era five day waiting period. Most recently, they supported enhancements to that system - this became law in 2007.

Link.

They defended this law against attacks from other gun rights activists who wanted to portray it as something it wasn’t - the NRA is very moderate, actually, within the gun rights community.

This is just one example, but it is a recent one.

[Little_Nemo]

Blatantly and utterly wrong. As a Lifetime NRA member, I assure you that the NRA’s position is that while the government should not interfere with any law-abiding citizen’s private decision to own (or not to own) a firearm, they also believe that NON-law-abiding citizens – felons – especially felons convicted of violent crimes – should have their right to own a firearm removed.

Where in heaven’s name did you hear the opposite??

From here:

In 1986, the National Rifle Association-drafted McClure-Volkmer firearms decontrol bill dramatically expanded the universe of convicted felons who could once again legally possess firearms.

The McClure-Volkmer bill:

* Extended relief privileges to those who had been convicted of crimes involving a firearm, involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or who had violated the Gun Control Act of 1968.

* Added wording expanding the ability of federal courts to review decisions by ATF to deny relief.

* Amended federal law so that restoration of civil rights by a state automatically restored the privilege of firearm possession unless the state law or individual pardon expressly excluded the ability to possess firearms. Prior to McClure-Volkmer, the federal "relief from disability" mechanism was the only way for a convicted felon to regain his firearms privileges.

[Liberal]

@DMC

Or perhaps the U.S. Code:

I don’t see any reference to the NRA’s position in that. That’s what **Bricker ** asked Little Nemo about — where he got his ideas about the NRA’s position.

[Czarcasm]

How much of the NRA is controlled by firearms manufacturers, and what percentage of it’s budget is contributed by the rank and file?

[Liberal]

@Czarcasm

How much of the NRA is controlled by firearms manufacturers, and what percentage of it’s budget is contributed by the rank and file?

I’m not quite sure you grasp the scope and scale of the NRA (flash video with sound will open after delay). Most of its financial support for its public projects comes from the NRA Foundation. Here are their 2006 financial statements (large PDF) , including balance sheets and income statements. As you can see, most of their revenues come from investments in money markets, securities, bonds, and mutual funds. Contributions to the 501(c )(3) foundation are tax deductable, since its mission is educational. It provides, for example, more than 60,000 marksmen and sharpshooter instructors for police and military training as well as training of the general public.

[DanBlather]

@control-z

If they’re going by the Constitution, then:

The militia part is antiquated these days. But to me the last part “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is crystal clear.

So define “arms”. Does the state have the right to limit anti-tank weapos, land mines, grenades, poison gas, flame throwers?

[Czarcasm]

@Liberal

I’m not quite sure you grasp the scope and scale of the NRA (flash video with sound will open after delay). Most of its financial support for its public projects comes from the NRA Foundation. Here are their 2006 financial statements (large PDF) , including balance sheets and income statements. As you can see, most of their revenues come from investments in money markets, securities, bonds, and mutual funds. Contributions to the 501(c )(3) foundation are tax deductable, since its mission is educational. It provides, for example, more than 60,000 marksmen and sharpshooter instructors for police and military training as well as training of the general public.

And I’m not sure you understand my question. I’m not trying to find out where the money goes, I’m trying to find out who decides where the money goes. What is the background of the Board of Directors? Did they have(or do they currently have) jobs in the firearms business? Of the donors labeled (fill in the blank)Friends of NRA, how many come from firearms manufacturers?

[Mr.Moto]

There’s a fine line between asking an honest question and having others do your research for you.

Instead of insinuating things about the NRA leadership, why don’t you find out for yourself whether they are stooges of the firearms industry. Whatever you find, bring it here for us to discuss.