Skip to main content

If no law can be made which abridges the Constitution how is it legal for them to take a constitutional right as such?

Phoenix, AZ |
Filed under: Civil rights

If no law can be made which abridges the Constitution how is it legal for them to take a constitutional right such as the 2nd amendment? I dont get it so can they make a federal law that denies you the right to freedom of speech because of a felony?

Attorney Answers 4

Posted

When the SCOTUS basically amended the Constitution in 2008 to say that the Second Amendment is an individual right, rather than a right to keep a well regulated militia, they specifically exempted their new law from affecting the laws that prohibit ex-felons from possessing a firearm.

To your larger point, every right has a number of exceptions.

Mark as helpful

1 lawyer agrees

4 comments

Asker

Posted

Right wouldn't making it illegal for someone to own a gun for prier convictions be conflicting with the 2nd amendment? Or is it a proper law which is consistent and non confrontational with our constitution. Truthfully it sounds like a loophole in taking ones right to own a firearm( not saying that it is intended in that manner). Basically is it constitutional and how so? To me it sounds like an infringement on an amendment which is as i know it not constitutional?

Lester Mike Paredes

Lester Mike Paredes

Posted

Well, one of the only ways to find out is to get arrested and try and make new case law. This is not advisable given the state of the law. You could also sue for an injunction in court, a much less riskier proposition, but an expensive long shot.

Lester Mike Paredes

Lester Mike Paredes

Posted

In United States v. Hayes, decided after the watershed gun-rights case, District of Columbia v. Heller, upheld the conviction of a person who had a prior for domestic violence and was illegally in possession of a gun.

Asker

Posted

I'll take your advise on that and not get arrested lol. But thanks for the advise truly helpful in all seriousness..

Posted

You should read the Constitution yourself, then ask. You appear to have jumbled a few concepts together. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

READ THIS BEFORE CALLING OR EMAILING ME: I am licensed to practice before the state and federal courts in Virginia. We have not established an attorney-client relationship unless we have a signed representation agreement and you have paid me. I am providing educational instruction only--not legal advice. You should speak with an attorney to whom you have provided all the facts, before you take steps that may impact your legal rights. I am not obligated to answer subsequent emails or phone calls unless you have hired me. I wish you the best of luck with your situation.

Mark as helpful

1 found this helpful

2 lawyers agree

10 comments

Asker

Posted

AMENDMENT XIV SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Posted

As I said, you are jumbling bits and parts. Interesting, this amendment was designed to nullify the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens and in response to the actions or readmitted Southern States after slavery was abolished. You will recall the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had just granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted this principle enshrined into the Constitution and they believed only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those state. Not sure what it has to do with your specific situation.

Asker

Posted

I have no situation just its boggled my brain for some time now, and i know about its ratification's. Just one last question... so an amendment can be abridged if members of congress find its justifiable by some sort such as a certain felony, or is it loop holes? Btw you're starting to be very helpful no ones been of any use to my questions.

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Posted

Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof". See it and some of the powers anchored in it at http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/49-necessary-and-proper-clause.html

Asker

Posted

Thanks for shedding some light on that matter but that's even scarier!!

Asker

Posted

Thanks for shedding some light on that matter but that's even scarier!!

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Posted

And the courts determine what is 'necessary and proper'

Asker

Posted

So what i get out of it is they can make a law as long as its with in the guidelines of the constitution but not abridging a constitutional right within reason and relevant to the context of an amendment. When they say execution i think they mean carrying out or putting into effect right?

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Rixon Charles Rafter III

Posted

you got it.

Asker

Posted

thanks dude

Posted

When a person becomes a criminal felon convict that person has waived certain inalienable rights of citizenship.

Read the document and you will see how our founding fathers evisioned it would work.

The US Constitution is a wonderfully crafted set of rights and obligations. When a person becomes a felon convict that person omits that part of the obligation of citizenship that enables that person to enjoy the freedoms of democracy.

Mark as helpful

1 found this helpful

2 lawyers agree

Posted

There are a number of laws at play. A person has received due process before they have their rights taken. You should study the case law on this topic but it has been litigated.

Mark as helpful

Civil rights topics

Top tips from attorneys

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics