4 ms·

They aren't felons until they've been found guilty of specific laws in a court of law, which is where the due process occurs.

Invictus0 7y ago
That's exactly my point: the parent was saying that, even with due process, their guns could not be taken away.
alistairSH 7y ago
Sure, but the response above was arguing that due process could NOT be used to limit access to guns. That the 2nd was absolute, or nearly so. Which is poppycock. We already limit access to machine guns. We already have age limits on access (typically 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns). And, as you mentioned, felons are prohibited.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  This line of reasoning concludes that the existence of a federal or state law implies its constitutionality. Given that the system requires a law to be passed before a challenge in court, this reasoning is inherently fallacious, since if it were true, no law could be ruled unconstitutional.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    Things like the NFA and other laws that come expressly into conflict with an unlimited interpretation of the second amendment have been challenged in court on constitutional grounds and those challenges have failed. As far as the US system is concerned that means some forms of limits on the second amendment /are/ constitutional and the 2nd amendment is thus definitively not unlimited unless and until the court issues a ruling that contradicts the previous rulings.
- weaksauce 7y ago
  and, in addition, red flag laws are not lacking due process... a judge rules on them after presenting arguments from a close party to the person. i don't believe there are any red flag laws that allow just anyone to bring proceedings but i could be wrong.
  - jeffdavis 7y ago
    A closed hearing from only a single party is not due process. Then, the subject of the order must fight (at great expense) to regain their rights, which is a de facto presumption of guilt. No hearing. No charges. No grand jury. No due process. Due process might be a 30-day order to confiscate guns. If they can't get a grand jury indictment or involuntary commitment to a mental institution in those 30 days, the gun owner gets their guns back automatically and can't be subject to another red flag for 10 years.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  All arguably unconstitutional, even if prudent and practical. Meaningful and lawful arms controls cannot exist in the US without a new amendment modifying the 2nd.

Invictus0 7y ago

That's exactly my point: the parent was saying that, even with due process, their guns could not be taken away.

alistairSH 7y ago

Sure, but the response above was arguing that due process could NOT be used to limit access to guns. That the 2nd was absolute, or nearly so. Which is poppycock. We already limit access to machine guns. We already have age limits on access (typically 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns). And, as you mentioned, felons are prohibited.

i_am_proteus 7y ago
This line of reasoning concludes that the existence of a federal or state law implies its constitutionality. Given that the system requires a law to be passed before a challenge in court, this reasoning is inherently fallacious, since if it were true, no law could be ruled unconstitutional.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Things like the NFA and other laws that come expressly into conflict with an unlimited interpretation of the second amendment have been challenged in court on constitutional grounds and those challenges have failed. As far as the US system is concerned that means some forms of limits on the second amendment /are/ constitutional and the 2nd amendment is thus definitively not unlimited unless and until the court issues a ruling that contradicts the previous rulings.
weaksauce 7y ago
and, in addition, red flag laws are not lacking due process... a judge rules on them after presenting arguments from a close party to the person. i don't believe there are any red flag laws that allow just anyone to bring proceedings but i could be wrong.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  A closed hearing from only a single party is not due process. Then, the subject of the order must fight (at great expense) to regain their rights, which is a de facto presumption of guilt. No hearing. No charges. No grand jury. No due process. Due process might be a 30-day order to confiscate guns. If they can't get a grand jury indictment or involuntary commitment to a mental institution in those 30 days, the gun owner gets their guns back automatically and can't be subject to another red flag for 10 years.
logfromblammo 7y ago
All arguably unconstitutional, even if prudent and practical. Meaningful and lawful arms controls cannot exist in the US without a new amendment modifying the 2nd.