convicted felons lose rights by the bushel. right to bear arms right to vote right to interstate travel to name three
Of which, none to my knowledge is explicitly guaranteed as absolute, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say "unless." Reasonable restriction has entered into the amendment, through judicial review. The intention may or may not have been to restrict access. It doesn't seem likely that in the beginnings, that felons weren't allowed possession of firearms, as there was little to no way of enforcing such a limitation. But, if one holds that a court ruling is as good as the letters on the Constitution, then, it cannot be argued that the 2nd Amendment isn't subject to reasonable restriction. So the question becomes: Does everyone have equal 2A rights? And if the answer is that reasonable restriction is allowed--what's reasonable? Ban on high capacity magazines, certain weapons, ammo, felons in possession, etc.
But, if one holds that a court ruling is as good as the letters on the Constitution, then, it cannot be argued that the 2nd Amendment isn't subject to reasonable restriction. see marbury v. madison So the question becomes: Does everyone have equal 2A rights? And if the answer is that reasonable restriction is allowed--what's reasonable? Ban on high capacity magazines, certain weapons, ammo, felons in possession, etc.[/QUOTE] everyone starts with equal protection under the law. reasonableness is situational.
There are those that do not hold that judicial review is valid and/or truly Constitutional. Marbury v. Madison may have established it as such, but clearly it is not, given that courts, over time, change their opinion on what is and what is not Constitutional. As such, there are proponents of a strict interpretation, that isn't subject to which judges are sitting on the bench. And if a strict interpretation was the metric, then everyone would be able to keep and bear arms--felon or otherwise. Reasonableness is arbitrary.
y2k, I feel this is a complex issue that often quickly devolves into two opposing straw men. I think we are objectively violating the 2nd amendment right now, but it is just in a way that most everyone agrees with. The issue is, that undermines the argument of the 2nd amendment preventing other forms of regulation/restriction.
Gay marriage and marijuana laws are proof that opinions change. On this issue they have not changed enough to support the restrictions you seek. Who knows what the future holds.
What restrictions do I seek? I'm calling out the unconstitutional restriction of arms for felons. In this conversation, you are the one seeking to continue an unconstitutional restriction.
I agree. If they're too dangerous to be full citizens, keep their ass in prison. It's really ashame when their rights are taken for nonviolent convections.
The constitution disagrees with them. "Shall not be infringed" isn't really open to multiple interpretations.
