this may be a dumb question but;

>>132052275
i personaly think so long as they were not violent offenders they should be allowed but im just wondering what it is the context of the law

Upon committing a felonious crime you give up your constitutional rights

If push comes to shove, sure serve in a militia, get armed when you need it. But a criminal being armed in peace time is more trouble than the figurative worth

>>132052275
I don't find that language anywhere in the Second Amendment

Once a sentence has been served, I see no reason why an individual should not be able to legally possess a firearm.

>>132052668
but theystill hold the right to the first amendment as well as the 14th ammendment? doesnt that still make them citizens with rights?

>>132052668
Your opinion is irrelevant
>>132052275
It starts with felons. If the State can determine which citizens can access their rights, then they become privileges. Take domestic violence convicts. Misdemeanor harassment is the most common DV charge, and it strips that person of their constitutional right to bare arms. Harassment, not assault.

>>132053375
but why specifically the second amendment though? they cant quarter soldiers in their homes or gointo their homes without warrents so long as they arent on parole

>>132052275
>Is it constitutionally legal to bar convicts who paid their time in prison from owning a fire arm?
>note that im not saying they should have it but on a legal standpoint, is it even constitutional to take it away?
Yes, long story short the government is allowed to restrict legal gun ownership to many people, however it is on the government to prove that class of persons should have their right taken away, and the right to own firearms for self protection in the home is a fundamental right.

What that means is, the government has to prove that banning that person/class of persons is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, that "test" is known as strict scrutiny, and it applies to most fundamental rights. Then government can easily say that felons are generally criminals, and are dangerous. Stopping proven dangerous persons from owning weapons/potentially harming other citizens is a compelling government interest. There is no alternative to accomplishing this interest other than barring these persons from owning guns.

That's just the law.

t. American Lawyer

>>132052275
in most states they are not citizens, they are not allowed to vote.

of course, in states ruled by democrats your point is valid

>>132053815
The idea that felons are dangerous or violent is absurd. The vast majority of felonies involve no violence or human victim.

>>132053815
ty bro
also does that mean they can suspend all our rights on the count of protection or is it just the second amendment?

>>132054076
yeah, i think that personally they should be able to have the right back if they ere non violent offenders, cause what ties them to being dangerous individuals? i mean someone who commited tax fraud isnt neccessarily dangerous

File: 1494982356550.jpg (32KB, 337x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 337x400px

>>132054375
>someone who commited tax fraud isnt neccessarily dangerous
Delete this post right now. They are the most dangerous of them all!

>>132054568
i dont know why the jews wouldnt be for it, i mean shit just buy some stocks in hi-point
the blacks will make you millions

File: Hi-Point.jpg (7KB, 194x259px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 194x259px

>>132054967
obligatory pic

>>132054124
>all rights
Martial law famalam

But that's a different story. The second amendment is the only fundamental right that in theory could really harm others on its own. Other fundamental rights like marriage, producing offspring, other various due process rights, don't really have a chance to harm others. Not that I think owning a gun harms others or is even likely to, but just stating how the Courts have interpreted these things.

>>132054076
I didn't make the rules m8. I'd have drugs decriminalized, let the junkies OD, we're better off. However, from a policy perspective, I also wouldn't want drug addicted people owning weapons.
>but muh alcohol
Yea well we can't stop drunks from owning guns because drinking isn't illegal.

>>132054375
Some states allow this, either after expungement or something like it. It depends. I think if you were non violent it shouldn't have been taken from you to begin with. Violent criminals lose it for life.

>>132054967
I was more commenting on the Jews in government that want you to pay taxes.

File: 1477382924506.png (226KB, 652x523px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 652x523px

>>132052275
Once one has given up their rights via a serious offense, then they are relegated (by their actions) to a less-than entity. It's a social contract that isn't to be broken; it's saying "I'm worth my own life", so in defense, per happenstance, the real question you should be asking, is; "Are felons not worthy enough towards protecting themselves and their families via firearms?"

Wake up.

Laws were enacted, originally, in that people were supposed to work together... If you broke the contract, then it was said that you held no values that were able to govern life above all else, and thus you lost the right to protect YOURself.

In short; sort yourself out.