Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Does the Second Amendment cover edged weapons?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2997770" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>1) Pardon is different from parole. Pardon erases the conviction (for purposes of law); it is as if it never happened. Parole is the government saying "we gave you twenty years, we can keep you twenty years; we're going to let you out even though you've only served ten, subject to the following conditions." If the parolee doesn't like the less-restrictive conditions, he's free to decline parole and sit in his cell.</p><p></p><p>2) As for parole or probation, they're not open-ended releases; they're an allowance to walk free at a time when the government has the authority to imprison you. They come with rules, some of which are restrictions on liberty. Even checking in with a parole officer is a restriction; truly free men don't have to check in with their governments. Is that unconstitutional?</p><p></p><p>I consider myself to be a constitutional purist as well, but I consider the document as a whole. The Fifth Amendment was passed contemporaneously with the Second, so the two have to be considered in light of each other. The Fifth clearly contemplates the government restricting "life, liberty, [and] property" subject to due process of law. I don't <em>like</em> the lifetime prohibition for felons, but I think it is <em>probably</em> constitutional, simply because the language of the Fifth Amendment allows for it, and doesn't provide restrictions on that grant of power (though the Eighth Amendment <em>might</em>, if it's found to be excessive). I definitely think conditions of parole, or probation in lieu of imprisonment (for a duration up to that punishable by imprisonment), are constitutional; I don't see any merit in the idea that the government can imprison somebody, but cannot take away a lesser subset of his rights than prison would (again, up to the duration for which imprisonment would be allowed; no lifetime prohibition for stealing a candy bar).</p><p></p><p>I don't think either of us is likely to swing the other to his view, but that's not a bad thing. Discussions like this keep everyone on his toes, and keep liberty and limitations on government forward in everyone's mind, as is proper in a free society.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2997770, member: 13624"] 1) Pardon is different from parole. Pardon erases the conviction (for purposes of law); it is as if it never happened. Parole is the government saying "we gave you twenty years, we can keep you twenty years; we're going to let you out even though you've only served ten, subject to the following conditions." If the parolee doesn't like the less-restrictive conditions, he's free to decline parole and sit in his cell. 2) As for parole or probation, they're not open-ended releases; they're an allowance to walk free at a time when the government has the authority to imprison you. They come with rules, some of which are restrictions on liberty. Even checking in with a parole officer is a restriction; truly free men don't have to check in with their governments. Is that unconstitutional? I consider myself to be a constitutional purist as well, but I consider the document as a whole. The Fifth Amendment was passed contemporaneously with the Second, so the two have to be considered in light of each other. The Fifth clearly contemplates the government restricting "life, liberty, [and] property" subject to due process of law. I don't [I]like[/I] the lifetime prohibition for felons, but I think it is [I]probably[/I] constitutional, simply because the language of the Fifth Amendment allows for it, and doesn't provide restrictions on that grant of power (though the Eighth Amendment [I]might[/I], if it's found to be excessive). I definitely think conditions of parole, or probation in lieu of imprisonment (for a duration up to that punishable by imprisonment), are constitutional; I don't see any merit in the idea that the government can imprison somebody, but cannot take away a lesser subset of his rights than prison would (again, up to the duration for which imprisonment would be allowed; no lifetime prohibition for stealing a candy bar). I don't think either of us is likely to swing the other to his view, but that's not a bad thing. Discussions like this keep everyone on his toes, and keep liberty and limitations on government forward in everyone's mind, as is proper in a free society. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Does the Second Amendment cover edged weapons?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom