Michael Lorrey wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > A "felon" is simply and only a person convicted of breaking certain
> > laws, irrational or not, that the government has decided to call
> > felonies, irrational or not. The *felon* is first and foremost a
> > person. The argument that a felon is a "non-citizen" and therefore
> > different rules apply is extremely dangerous. If rights came only from
> > being a "citizen" then the argument might makes sense.
>
> That is why I said 'non-citizen' versus 'non-person'. Non-citizens here
> in the US are restricted in many areas: they cannot carry concealed
> weapons or own guns (because as non-citizens, they are not part of or
> eligible to belong to the 'militia', organized or unorganized, which is
> made up of all voter-eligible citizens).
>
I don't believe the Bill of Rights restricts human rights to citizens
only. Nor do I see anything in the 2nd amendment limiting it to
voter-eligible citizens. When women could not vote (up to less than a
century ago) did we have no right to self-defense?
> A felon is in a state of what is called 'civil disability', meaning that
> due to their criminal convictions, they are disabled from belonging to
> the militia, and from engaging in many other activities which are the
> natural right of people, especially those who are citizens. A felon can
> regain the right to vote and keep and bear arms by petitioning the court
> for 'relief from civil disability' after three years of good behavior
> following the conclusion of their sentence (which includes probation
> time).
>
I don't agree that "militia" is the important term in the 2nd amendment
or that some particular notion of "militia" should limit the
individual's right to self-defense. I don't agree that the government
can legtimately strip me of rights at any time simply by declaring
something I do a felony. I don't agree it is up to a court to deign to
return rights to me the government had no business claiming to own and
dole out to start with.
> You are right to be concerned about 'slippery slopes' if government
> decides to make a large percent of the population into felons, however,
> as I've said before, people tend to get the government they deserve. If
> enough people wanted that sort of government, they are going to get it
> whether they like the results or not. This occured in both Germany and
> Italy, where the concept of natural rights was non-existent. Here, at
> least, the logic is that government can only suspend one's rights for
> demonstrating an inability to use them responsibly, it cannot
> permanently confiscate them because they don't belong to or originate
> from the government. This doesn't mean that such abuses are impossible,
> they just take longer and require a slower rate of erosion.
>
We already largely have it and it is not because most people wanted it.
Blame the victim will get us nowhere. Governments grow and abrogate
powers on their own schedule not necessarily as subject to the will of
the people as we would like to believe.
> I hope this explains my position better.
Yes, it does. But the way rights are abused in felony convictions,
especially bogus felonies, is the barn door standing wide open.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT