But it is not constitutional to legislatively disable the RKBA for persons convicted of a violent felony, which is what 18 USC 922 does. The disablement needs to be explicit in the sentencing order, as part of the penalty, and the  need for it separately proved to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, apart from the main offense. It is also unconstitutional for the national congress to legislate criminal prosecution of a person whose RKBA has been disabled by a state court order (just as it would be for a disablement by the court of a foreign country). The violation would be contumacy -- violation of the state court order, if the violation occurs in that state. See my law review article Public Safety or Bills of Attainder?

Joseph E. Olson wrote:
Barring a proven VIOLENT criminal from the possession of arms until he or she has demonstrated rehabilitation should be Constitutional.  Barring a competent, responsible, adult from possessing a Barrett Light 50 (or anything else) adds nothing to public safety and should be unconstitutional. 
-- Jon

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001    www.constitution.org    [email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to