paddymurphy
Gold Member
- Jun 9, 2015
- 4,020
- 632
- 155
His rights are not unlimited. They are limited where his exercise would endanger public safety.No. The other person in the house with access to the gun is. She also is a drunk who gets violent when she drinks. He is not being punished. Not being able to bring a gun into the home of a felon is not punishment.That did not happen here. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Not allowing a felon with a recent history of violence and alcohol abuse to have access to a gun is reasonable. If Dylann Roof were allowed out on bail, would you think his parents right to keep and bear arms were being violated if the bail condition were that they remove all guns from the home and were forbidden from having any brought in?But, here, the law is most certainly right. Keeping guns away from those whose past conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to obey the law and whose more recent conduct demonstrates a tendency towards violence when they are drunk is a proper object of the law.
The law is never right when a person's Constitutionally protected rights are denied because of the actions of another
The husband was not a felon was he?
The husband's rights are being denied because of someone else's crimes.
As I said people are allowed to keep firearms in a house with other people who have no legal right to access them (CHILDREN) and that's just fine.
And yes Roof's parents rights would be violated if their guns were confiscated because their son killed someone.
Unlike you I do not believe people should be punished for crimes they did not commit.
Hos rights are being violated, taken away which is how we punish criminals