Felons and guns
A convicted drug felon believes a constitutional amendment approved by voters in August means he can have a gun — but it will be up to the Missouri Supreme Court to decide if he’s right.
The court heard Marcus Merritt’s case Tuesday morning. Merritt argues that Amendment 5, which 60 percent of voters supported, changes Missouri law to mean that as a non-violent felon he should be allowed to have guns.
The amendment declares the right to keep and bear arms “unalienable” and subjects laws restricting gun rights to “strict scrutiny.” Residents have the right to keep ammunition and accessories, as well as the right to defend their families with firearms — a right previously limited to defending home, property and person.
December 11th, 2014 at 7:49 pm
I firmly believe that any non-violent Ex-Con that has, say, 10 years of clean record and proven to be a solid citizen should have their rights AUTOMATICLY restored.
Yes and that includes the right to vote.
It should be up to the DA to PROVE they are still outlaws.
To perpetually take away their rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
December 11th, 2014 at 11:43 pm
The Supreme Court held otherwise in 1974, and their 1985 finding that it might be unconstitutional in certain circumstances is based solely on racial impact. You agree with that?
Creating a separate lower class of citizenship for felons was well accepted 18th century common law. Our mistake has not been in creating so many felons, but so many felonies.
December 12th, 2014 at 9:19 am
If you don’t trust them to defend themselves, why do you trust them to walk around outside of a cell?
December 12th, 2014 at 1:29 pm
^^^^THIS^^^^
December 12th, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Well, felonies used to be crimes where the punishment for the crime was death. So there weren’t any convicted felons walking around outside of prison back then.
December 13th, 2014 at 8:10 pm
“Our mistake has not been in creating so many felons, but so many felonies.”
That right there. 3 felonies per day person, as someone estimated.
December 14th, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Once a court or law determines an appropriate punishment, and someone has satisfied the requirements of that punishment for a crime he has been determined to have committed, he should be returned to a state of full citizenship. Voting, firearms, the lot.
If he still can’t be trusted, he’ll screw up and be caught again. Punish the crime, not the ability to commit it. If the defined punishment is insufficient, let’s codify the punishment we see as appropriate.
Should I commit some grievous offence, I’d like to think that after I’d served my time for it, I would no longer have the sword of Damocles hanging over me. Let me regret my actions to the extent that has been determined sufficient, then move on.