A 2-1 panel faulted a provision of Mississippi’s state constitution that mandates lifetime disenfranchisement for people convicted of crimes including murder, rape and theft.
Does this precedent have gun control implications? Does criminal activity selectively disqualify you from certain constitutional protections but not others?
I certainly have personal thoughts on the matter but curious what it implies more objectively.
The argument almost certainly requires a consistent logical reason for why it should be taken away. The argument for taking away rights to firearms is that they may be more dangerous, which I would bet the court agrees with. What is the harm being caused by allowing felons to vote though?
Your rights are infrenged all the time. They have to have a justifiable reason to do so though. You can be detained with reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed, for example. Your rights are not unlimited.
“[No person shall…] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
The constitution does not have a problem with suspending an individual’s rights, as long as “due process” is followed. You can deny a person’s right to freedom, to travel, to associate with others. You can deny them the right to own or possess property. You can even revoke their right to life itself, as a punishment for a severe enough crime. The constitution allows all of that.
I have no problem with the idea that a person can be permanently deprived of their gun rights as part of a penalty for a crime, but if that person cannot ever be trusted with guns, they should be under the permanent supervision of the state.
Imagine if it were. They would have been bigger than nostrodomus! My god, imagine… Founding fathers with the gift of foresight. Could have saved us from WWI, WWII, WWIII, all them wars
A drivers license isn’t a constitutional right. Current judicial reading of the 2nd amendment says private ownership is. Whether that is a correct reading of the sentence, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Really is up for debate.
Private ownership doesnt correlate to a well regulated militia, that describes something more like the National Guard in my opinion.
“Militia” is a frequently misunderstood concept. We know from contemporary writings of the founding fathers that they specifically intended for every American to be considered a militiaman. You definitely want to look up the federal definition. 10 USC 246. That is only the legislated definition and not the constitutional meaning, but it is informative nonetheless.
10 USC 246 is a law enacted in accordance with Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 of the constitution. It is a provision for calling forth the militia. Under 10 USC 246, Congress provides for the specific people they want to be ready to called forth, by categorizing them into two “classes”. Every able-bodied male citizen, 17-45 years of age, and every male who intends to become a citizen, and every member of the national guard, (regardless of age or sex). 10 USC 246 underpins the regulation that all young men register for the draft. Selective Service registration is one of the few “regulations” that Congress has deemed fit to impose on the “Unorganized” class of the militia. The “Organized” class is subject to a number of additional regulations.
Again, though, this is the legislative definition, not the constitutional. Congress is not limited to the 17-45 age range, or men only, or even citizens. Congress could change the law to ages 16-60, or include women as well as men, or specify all persons subject to American law rather than just American citizens. Hell, they could even swap the “able bodies” requirement for “sound mind”: amputees and paraplegic individuals could still be called forth to control drones, for example.
Constitutionally, all of those additional people outside of the provisions of 10 USC 246 are already in the militia. Congress hasn’t deemed it necessary or proper to impose additional regulations on this group. Congress has effectively deemed them sufficiently “well regulated” with no formal regulation at all.
When we understand just what “militia” actually means, there is no real debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment. We can debate on what regulations are necessary and proper for Congress to impose on the general public in their capacity as militia, but infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is specifically excluded.
That’s a lot of words to try to claim that by stating “well-regulated militia” what they actually meant was every able-bodied man. If that were the case, it is much more straight forward to specify that.they had no issue making specific claims in other amendments. Doesn’t seem like those are comparable when you actually look at it beyond right wing talking points and perspectives written and lobbied by the firearms industry to sell as many products as possible.
what they actually meant was every able-bodied man
No. Constitutionally, “militia” is not limited to either “able bodies” or “men”. Those distinctions arise from a provision Congress has made regarding the militia: 10 USC 246. They are not present in the Constitution itself, nor in contemporaneous writings and discussions.
If that were the case, it is much more straight forward to specify that.they had no issue making specific claims in other amendments.
Indeed.
I would draw your attention to the other two forces discussed in Article I Section 8. Specifically, Part 12, which discusses Congress’s power to “raise” armies, and part 13, which discusses Congress’s power to “provide” a Navy. Both armies and the Navy are created by the government.
Contrast the language in parts 12 (armies) and 13 (Navy) with the language in part 15 (militia). The power of Congress is not to will the militia into existence, but to “call forth” the militia. That militia is never explicitly created by the government as armies and Navy are created. The militia is simply presumed to exist, and presumed capable of answering such a call.
Does this precedent have gun control implications? Does criminal activity selectively disqualify you from certain constitutional protections but not others?
I certainly have personal thoughts on the matter but curious what it implies more objectively.
The argument almost certainly requires a consistent logical reason for why it should be taken away. The argument for taking away rights to firearms is that they may be more dangerous, which I would bet the court agrees with. What is the harm being caused by allowing felons to vote though?
Your rights are infrenged all the time. They have to have a justifiable reason to do so though. You can be detained with reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed, for example. Your rights are not unlimited.
I have no idea why taking a felons gun rights is constitutional. To me, it opens up other avenues of taking gun rights away from people.
“[No person shall…] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
The constitution does not have a problem with suspending an individual’s rights, as long as “due process” is followed. You can deny a person’s right to freedom, to travel, to associate with others. You can deny them the right to own or possess property. You can even revoke their right to life itself, as a punishment for a severe enough crime. The constitution allows all of that.
I have no problem with the idea that a person can be permanently deprived of their gun rights as part of a penalty for a crime, but if that person cannot ever be trusted with guns, they should be under the permanent supervision of the state.
Why do we take a person’s driver’s license away when they violate certian laws?
Driver’s license is not enshrined in the Constitution.
Imagine if it were. They would have been bigger than nostrodomus! My god, imagine… Founding fathers with the gift of foresight. Could have saved us from WWI, WWII, WWIII, all them wars
A drivers license isn’t a constitutional right. Current judicial reading of the 2nd amendment says private ownership is. Whether that is a correct reading of the sentence, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Really is up for debate.
Private ownership doesnt correlate to a well regulated militia, that describes something more like the National Guard in my opinion.
“Militia” is a frequently misunderstood concept. We know from contemporary writings of the founding fathers that they specifically intended for every American to be considered a militiaman. You definitely want to look up the federal definition. 10 USC 246. That is only the legislated definition and not the constitutional meaning, but it is informative nonetheless.
10 USC 246 is a law enacted in accordance with Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 of the constitution. It is a provision for calling forth the militia. Under 10 USC 246, Congress provides for the specific people they want to be ready to called forth, by categorizing them into two “classes”. Every able-bodied male citizen, 17-45 years of age, and every male who intends to become a citizen, and every member of the national guard, (regardless of age or sex). 10 USC 246 underpins the regulation that all young men register for the draft. Selective Service registration is one of the few “regulations” that Congress has deemed fit to impose on the “Unorganized” class of the militia. The “Organized” class is subject to a number of additional regulations.
Again, though, this is the legislative definition, not the constitutional. Congress is not limited to the 17-45 age range, or men only, or even citizens. Congress could change the law to ages 16-60, or include women as well as men, or specify all persons subject to American law rather than just American citizens. Hell, they could even swap the “able bodies” requirement for “sound mind”: amputees and paraplegic individuals could still be called forth to control drones, for example.
Constitutionally, all of those additional people outside of the provisions of 10 USC 246 are already in the militia. Congress hasn’t deemed it necessary or proper to impose additional regulations on this group. Congress has effectively deemed them sufficiently “well regulated” with no formal regulation at all.
When we understand just what “militia” actually means, there is no real debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment. We can debate on what regulations are necessary and proper for Congress to impose on the general public in their capacity as militia, but infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is specifically excluded.
That’s a lot of words to try to claim that by stating “well-regulated militia” what they actually meant was every able-bodied man. If that were the case, it is much more straight forward to specify that.they had no issue making specific claims in other amendments. Doesn’t seem like those are comparable when you actually look at it beyond right wing talking points and perspectives written and lobbied by the firearms industry to sell as many products as possible.
No. Constitutionally, “militia” is not limited to either “able bodies” or “men”. Those distinctions arise from a provision Congress has made regarding the militia: 10 USC 246. They are not present in the Constitution itself, nor in contemporaneous writings and discussions.
Indeed.
I would draw your attention to the other two forces discussed in Article I Section 8. Specifically, Part 12, which discusses Congress’s power to “raise” armies, and part 13, which discusses Congress’s power to “provide” a Navy. Both armies and the Navy are created by the government.
Contrast the language in parts 12 (armies) and 13 (Navy) with the language in part 15 (militia). The power of Congress is not to will the militia into existence, but to “call forth” the militia. That militia is never explicitly created by the government as armies and Navy are created. The militia is simply presumed to exist, and presumed capable of answering such a call.
LOL how could it have been, cars weren’t invented. A doy!
Your understanding is how the 2nd was interpreted for decades. until 2008 when Scalia and 4 other SCOTUS justices decided, “Nah.”
Here’s a good write-up: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/14/1113705501/second-amendment-supreme-court-dick-heller-gun-rights