should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[IndianaGTI]

Actually, Yes I do...
I have a HUGE issue with Lists...

AS long as they have been either Released, Paroled, or Pardoned...

Wow Jeremy. You are consistent. I disagree with your position but that's what's great, you can have your position and I can have mine.

 

[IndianaGTI]

Where does it say you have a Right to Live Where You want?

You may try to attain that in pursuit of your happiness but you are not entitled to a Natural Right to live where you wish. Therefore I feel no Right would be violated.

You do however have a Natural Right to self defence as is re-affirmed in our Federal and State Constituions and going back to the Magna Carta.

Once released, I have to say all restored.

Kurr, I was just saying that several of the people have said that your debt to society is paid when you are released from jail and you should be treated like everyone else. I was just asking if they meant it. Clearly, Jeremy does.

To answer your question though, the constitution has been interpreted to give a Right to Live Where you want.

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1]

 

[Bill of Rights]

I do not like the fact that former child molesters might live next to a preschool, but I understand that stupid, arbitrary lines will not make a difference. Example: A law was considered a couple of years ago (I think it passed but not sure) that says a former sex offender cannot live within 1000 feet of a school or playground. Sounds good, right? So if he happens to own a home within those lines, he is not allowed the use of his property for lawful purposes. Some are OK with that.

So what happens if the guy's home is 1,001 feet from the school. Suppose it's 1500 feet. He can't walk the extra 500 feet? Or drive it? In addition, his taxes pay for public parks, too, but he's prevented from going to them without being released from that liability?

If they are freed, I say they should not be denied any of their rights. That doesn't mean I think they should be freed, unless we are referring to freeing a child molester from the confines of his body.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

OK, balorg, finity and the rest of you who think punishment ends and all rights should be restored when you are released from prison, do you also believe that child molesters should be able to live next to preschools without registering?

Yes.

"it's for the children" shouldn't be used to infringe on a free person's Rights, either.

Where does it say you have a Right to Live Where You want?

"It" doesn't have to SAY it.

There's no way to list ALL the Rights you have in the Bill of Rights.

Read the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because there are certain Rights that are specifically protected in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that those are the ONLY Rights that you have.

THe Founders were smart enough to realize that SOME pople would try to do exactly what you are doing & they made sure to specify that's not what was intended by the BoR by putting in the "catch-all" of the 9A.

Using that line of reasoning, do you think that the government can legally decide where you live? Since you think it's not a Right then they should be ble to ANYONE (including YOU) where they can live.

As another example, do you have kids? The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that you have a Right to have kids. Should we allow the government to sterilize whomever they wish (including YOU)?

Once released, I have to say all restored.

"All" means ALL. Not just the ones we agree with.

 

[Kurr]

I did not mean to imply that our Rights are granted by legislatures or contracts or constitutions. Sorry if it came out that way.

Also I do not believe a (without getting into a big 14th thing) that Privilages and Immunities are the same thing as Rights.

To help clarify my posistion: You may try to persuade the owner of a property to sell it to you for your use. You and they have a Right to Contract, if you can come to terms. That is a Right.

If however you try to assert yourself so that the owner of the property is forced to sell to you because you think you have some Right to live exactly where you wish to, we can all see this clearly would not be acceptable. I.e. you have no "Right to live where ever you wish" That is simply all I meant.

I am not comfortable with CMs living in close proximity to children but agree with if freed they should retain all their rights, even ones I do not personally agree with, as you stated.

You'll have to explain to me how freedom of movement equates freedom of residence. because I am unfamiliar with all aspects you speak of.

Also what if the convicted is living in a residence and they build a school across the street? Currently The convicted and released, would have to move, no?

 

[jeremy]

Wow Jeremy. You are consistent. I disagree with your position but that's what's great, you can have your position and I can have mine.

Personally, I feel that Child Molesters are one of the Offenses that should have a trip to a Gallows...

But, since I live in Reality, once they have served the Sentence that the Jurors of their Peers and Judge have decreed was Fair and Just...

 

[jwfuhrman]

Non-violent Felons, maybe, but violent felons, hell no.

 

[Sgood]

No that's part of the penalty of doing the crime

Agreed...if a man knows, he will loose his rights...and commits the crime anyway.....NO, he does not get his rights back!!!!

 

[Osobuco]

If they have paid their debt to society then yes I think they should be allowed to defend themselves.

This is a rather interesting notion - The "debt to society" that is. What does that even mean. IMHO prison is for punishment. I think time served does not repay ANYTHING to society. Their trial, incarceration, appeals, etc etc all cost the taxpayer (society) thousands and thousands of dollars. When felons actually repay the $ the law abiding spend in taxes te deal with them then they can have their rights back. Until then they are X-cons who still owe society so no to guns. They have not repaid a thing as far as I am concerned.

 

[jsgolfman]

Awesome, revive a dead thread to tread all over liberty! Woohoo!

 

[Bunnykid68]

This is a rather interesting notion - The "debt to society" that is. What does that even mean. IMHO prison is for punishment. I think time served does not repay ANYTHING to society. Their trial, incarceration, appeals, etc etc all cost the taxpayer (society) thousands and thousands of dollars. When felons actually repay the $ the law abiding spend in taxes te deal with them then they can have their rights back. Until then they are X-cons who still owe society so no to guns. They have not repaid a thing as far as I am concerned.

Key words in RED, no longer cons, allegedly free.

 

[K_W]

I say "yes, but"

It would have to depend on what felony (A & B = NO, C & D = Maybe), the nature of the offense, and how much time has passed.

For example, I have a friend who, in 1990 at 25 yo, was busted for possession, transportation, and manufacturing of Methamphetamine and poss. of Meth. precursors. He served his time (3yrs) and in 2009 he successfully completed his 15yr probation. He has become a great guy, he's married and with 4 "normal" kids, 2 of which are in the Army, and a grand-kid on the way. His family has had to remain defenseless because of what he did nearly 20 years ago. I think this is wrong.

 

[Osobuco]

Key words in RED, no longer cons, allegedly free.

Yes - X-con - but still have not repaid their debt IMHO

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yes - X-con - but still have not repaid their debt IMHO.

A lot of these so called felonies are crazy in their own right, if they were not felonies to begin with the State/taxpayers would have never spent the money prosecuting them and incarcerating them at such a huge expense.

 

[Osobuco]

A lot of these so called felonies are crazy in their own right, if they were not felonies to begin with the State/taxpayers would have never spent the money prosecuting them and incarcerating them at such a huge expense.

I agree with you on that one.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I agree with you on that one.

See we are on the same page

 

[Osobuco]

See we are on the same page

LOL - Not so fast - in the same book but not entirely on the same page - I think over a couple beers I could get you to see it my way entirely

 

[Bunnykid68]

LOL - Not so fast - in the same book but not entirely on the same page - I think over a couple beers I could get you to see it my way entirely

Only if your way involves handing me another cold one

 

[jeremy]

LOL - Not so fast - in the same book but not entirely on the same page - I think over a couple beers I could get you to see it my way entirely

Only if your way involves handing me another cold one

So which one of you 2 Douches buying?!

 

[Bunnykid68]

So which one of you 2 Douches buying?!

Osobuco is buying, but we are not sharing if you think we are douche bags