View Single Post
Old March 18, 2013, 12:06 PM   #97
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,060
Considering many times, it has been mentioned lawyers throw out the kitchen sink in the first complaint just to cover all their bases, yeah, I am surprised it wasn't there.

I also think:
  1. If you're in jail during an election, or jury summons- if the person serving the jail sentence is not provided polling station access-or an absentee ballot, or is denied a seat on a jury, or is denied the ability to register to run for office during a jail sentence anyone who is subject to a misdemeanor jail sentence has had their civil rights removed as applied, if not by actual statute
  2. Civil rights are MUCH broader than the State may be claiming(According to other posters). For example the right to own property is listed as a civil right in SHELLEY V. KRAEMER , 334 U.S. 1 (1948), and perhaps more on point the freedom:
    Quote:
    peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom
    United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), another civil right removed and restored upon completion of a sentence.
  3. As far as ex post facto: a few cites from Calder v Bull 3 US 386 (1798)
    Quote:
    The prohibition, considered in this light, is an additional bulwark in favor of the personal security of the subject, to protect his person from punishment by legislative acts having a retrospective operation.
    and
    Quote:
    I do not think it was inserted to secure the citizen in his private rights of either property or contracts.
    and finally
    Quote:
    If the prohibition against making ex post facto laws was intended to secure personal rights from being affected, or injured by such laws, and the prohibition is sufficiently extensive for that object, the other restraints I have enumerated were unnecessary, and therefore improper, for both of them are retrospective/
  4. Is a Civil Disability a punishment? This is certainly implied by the restored civil rights portion of the law. The restoration of civil rights, or the removal of civil disabilities upon the completion of a sentence, especially as the disability was caused by the conviction strongly implies civil disability is a punishment.

    Edit: And if it is a punishment, is this then ex post facto, a bill of attainder, or both? Inflicting a firearms disability on a class of people after the fact? Due process was there, but it wasn't there in some ways too.

Last edited by JimDandy; March 18, 2013 at 12:12 PM.
JimDandy is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04863 seconds with 7 queries