Michigan: barring felons from gun possession is OK
It also would probably help your case if you hadn’t just shot your wife in the neck.
That’s one of the problems with gun law cases. A lot of the defendants aren’t exactly Boy Scouts.
2 Responses to “Michigan: barring felons from gun possession is OK”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 15th, 2009 at 11:25 am
“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.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:35 am
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.