One thing I've said more than a few times is that we say that someone who has served their time in prison has paid their debt to society. In reality, they don't. They have their rights restricted to a fair degree even after they've completed their sentence.
Among those restrictions is their right to keep and bear arms.
Several felons sought to change that by challenging the federal ban on those with felonies possessing firearms. Now, those challenges have hit the end of the road, and it didn't go well.
The Supreme Court shunted aside several gun rights cases Tuesday that tested the limits of the federal law that bans felons from possessing firearms.
Three convicts had argued that the law was unconstitutional, particularly as applied to their circumstances.
The justices turned the petitions aside without comment.
Two men had argued their previous felony convictions were for nonviolent offenses and they shouldn’t be used to permanently deny Second Amendment rights.
The third, however, had a conviction for domestic violence and battery.
I'm sorry to see non-violent felons continue to have their gun rights stripped from them, but I can't say that I'm surprised. That's especially true with a challenge from a violent felon.
With Rahimi, the Court made it pretty clear that they believe that the analogs of keeping drunks disarmed are sufficient for keeping other potentially dangerous people disarmed, and Rahimi was charged with having a gun while under a restraining order. That's not even close to a felony conviction.
I'd have thought they'd at least consider taking up one of the non-violent felon cases, in part because non-violent felons aren't a danger to society, thus there's little reason to believe the historic laws are analogous in any way.
It's possible SCOTUS would agree, but they just didn't want to fool with it this time around.
My own take is that if you're too dangerous to have your gun rights, you're too dangerous to be walking around free. However, that's far from the majority opinion in this country. Whether or not the justices would agree with me remains to be seen, especially since they declined to hear the cases.
However, since they're looking to put a stake in the heart of the vampire rule in Hawaii, it's not like they're just ignoring gun rights as they did for decades. This might just be making sure they pick their battles, but I hate to see it.
There are a lot of people who fixed their lives and deserve a chance at being treated like actual citizens again.
At least there's now a process for getting rights restored for many felons. That's one positive we're seeing during the Trump administration, and it's something that should have never been throttled by Sen. Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats.
Gun rights are human rights, and it's well past time we started acting like it in this country and elsewhere. It starts by recognizing that even felons should get their rights back when they've paid their debt to society.
Among other places, of course.
We've got a lot of ground to cover, after all.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member