They can’t legally arrest people who have a right to have their firearms, and performing a constitutional duty!
Slippery slope. You don’t have a right to have a firearm if a court of law has taken that right from you. (Someone mind pointing out the part of the Constitution that says the Judicial branch is there to take away our rights? Anyone?) Government has been stripping us of our rights daily. Not sure why this is a surprise now.
True, but the law about convicted felons prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition has been on the books for quite some time and is specific.
As far as red flag laws that are being passed recently in states like Colorado and California is extremely troubling.
It’s also in violation of the 2nd amendment and is not necessary for any of the enumerated powers under Article 1, Section 8. What does Article 1, Section 8 say about Federal laws again?
Tell me again that our government (including the Judicial branch) is still operating within the confines of the Constitution. I dare you.
So the constitution is not specific about this, but a there is a law on the books that was passed that gives LEO an excuse to arrest a convicted felon if he or she is in violation of such law, regardless if the constitution states it or not it was a law that passed by both chambers of government. What is going to be done to resist such law? Fight it? In the courts?
"Under federal law, convicted felons lose their firearm rights, which is a decision that stemmed from a law developed in 1934. At that time, the federal government mandated that no person convicted of a felony involving violence would be able to have his or her firearm rights restores. Since the Gun Control Act was passed in 1968, anyone convicted of a felony – whether or not it involved violence – loses his or her firearm rights.
However, state laws may differ from those at the federal level. Varying state by state, gun restoration laws offer convicted felons opportunities to regain their firearm rights, and in some places, it is easier than others.
For instance, in Indiana, a person can petition to the courts to have their firearm rights restored, and in Kentucky, a convicted felon can apply for expungement – but not until five years after his or her sentence has been completed.
All in all, if you are looking to have your firearms rights restored, be sure to look into your state’s laws to ensure you are proceeding legally, with the correct information"
I am not sure I can tell you that the Federal Government follows the Constitution, but it can be amended at any time!
Again, where is the enumerated power for the Federal Government to remove the right to a gun from a convicted criminal? Or even write a law doing such?
Actually, there are rules for that too. Probably why it hasn’t been done. It’s not that easy to amend.
I am not sure what you are asking. If it is already a federal law, then what are you trying to argue against?
I agree, but an amendment can happen if there are enough votes!
It’s Unconstitutional. The Constitution itself says its UnConstitutional. The Court doesn’t get to say what the Constitution says. That’s also UnConstitutional.
The court doens’t pass laws, congress, and the Senate do and the President either signs it or vetoes it!
There has to be a convention first. And any amendment has to be ratified by the States. It’s not just a matter of votes.
That is correct, but it does come down to votes when such convention happens, but you are right, it is very difficult to do and hasn’t happened in a very long time!
Only because the votes aren’t there. If they had 2/3 of the House they could do it in the House, but the votes aren’t there.
It’s my understanding that the Constitution doesn’t give law enforcement power to the federal government.
The Executive branch is law enforcement. The Constitution does not give the Judicial branch or the legislative branch enforcement powers though.
As a matter of fact, the only laws the Executive branch is supposed to be enforcing are those which are Constitutional. The only FEDERAL laws that are supposed to be written are those which fall under the purview of Article 1, Section 8.
Therefore, there is no delegated power for the CIA, NSA, FBI, DOD, DHS, or any other Alphabet Soup agencies that are now part of the Executive branch because the sole function of the Executive branch is supposed to be literally enforcing the Constitution and all laws derived from it. (Which in reality, shouldn’t be that many.)
Congress violated the Constitution by writing UnConstitutional laws. The President violated the Constitution by signing UnConstitutional laws into law. The SCOTUS violated the Constitution by not declaring UnConstitutional laws UnConstitutional and striking them down like they’re supposed to.
Seeing a theme yet? Government isn’t working like its supposed to. Hasn’t been for awhile now. It’s why we have so many laws in fact that even our own lawmakers can’t keep them all straight. Our Founders never intended for the Federal Government to become so bloated and powerful or for our system of laws to become so complicated. We are no longer living in the Country our Founders fought and died to create. It’s morphed into something like they fought to break away from instead.
That’s what I was getting at.
1 Like
No, they may not. It takes approval of 2/3 of the states.
I should have clarified it as “they” as “it” can be amended not by the Federal Government is what I meant to say, typing to fast for my brain!
SCOTUS doesn’t rule on the constitutionality of a law until a case is brought before it challenging that law…and even then, it can refuse to hear the case.