Comments on: Michigan: barring felons from gun possession is OK http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/12/15/michigan-barring-felons-from-gun-possession-is-ok/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:20:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: comatus http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/12/15/michigan-barring-felons-from-gun-possession-is-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-234817 comatus Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:35:33 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31989#comment-234817 It confirms no such thing. The restriction is based on felons being permanently placed into a separate class of persons, who have limited rights. This is a huge difference, and is clearly part of the framing of these laws. Hard, sure. Unjust? I don't think so. Given a reasonable and more-or-less uniform definition of felony, some appeal procedure for restoration of full rights, and eternal vigilance over prosecution creep (which really is giving a lot in our current situation), this restriction is constitutional. There are other rights of "persons" that may be restricted to felons, as well. The problem is Lautenberg's restriction of misdemeanants. It confirms no such thing. The restriction is based on felons being permanently placed into a separate class of persons, who have limited rights. This is a huge difference, and is clearly part of the framing of these laws. Hard, sure. Unjust? I don’t think so.

Given a reasonable and more-or-less uniform definition of felony, some appeal procedure for restoration of full rights, and eternal vigilance over prosecution creep (which really is giving a lot in our current situation), this restriction is constitutional. There are other rights of “persons” that may be restricted to felons, as well. The problem is Lautenberg’s restriction of misdemeanants.

]]> By: Pete http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/12/15/michigan-barring-felons-from-gun-possession-is-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-234735 Pete Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:25:02 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=31989#comment-234735 "confirms the notion that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is subject to a reasonable exercise of the police power" So any right can be curtailed by reasonable exercise of the police power? So what's the point of having the rights in the first place if this is the ruling? God I hate my state so so much. Its completely worthless and should be sold to Canada. “confirms the notion that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is subject to a reasonable exercise of the police power”

So any right can be curtailed by reasonable exercise of the police power? So what’s the point of having the rights in the first place if this is the ruling? God I hate my state so so much. Its completely worthless and should be sold to Canada.

]]>