Full Version: United States Vs. Bean
Here is a link to a description of the argument on this case, it is being argued in the Supreme court right now:
US Vs. Bean
Basically Mr. Bean is arguing that, according to the 2nd Amendment, the right to bears arms is just that, a right, and not a privilege. Therefore, just because he is a convicted felon they should not be able to take his fundamental right to bear arms away. According to the law, the Secretary of the Treasury has the power to reinstate someone's right to bear arms, but when he applied to have the Secretary reinstate it, he was ignored. According to those involved in the case, Mr. Bean has a very powerful argument and he may win this case. Which would mean that felons could bear arms again, in theory.
This raises quite a few questions, two that come to mind are:
1) Is bearing arms a right or a privilege?
2) How come no cases are coming forward, to reinstate a felon's right (or privilege) to vote. . .or is owning a gun a more important right to felons?
-Kisov
US Vs. Bean
Basically Mr. Bean is arguing that, according to the 2nd Amendment, the right to bears arms is just that, a right, and not a privilege. Therefore, just because he is a convicted felon they should not be able to take his fundamental right to bear arms away. According to the law, the Secretary of the Treasury has the power to reinstate someone's right to bear arms, but when he applied to have the Secretary reinstate it, he was ignored. According to those involved in the case, Mr. Bean has a very powerful argument and he may win this case. Which would mean that felons could bear arms again, in theory.
This raises quite a few questions, two that come to mind are:
1) Is bearing arms a right or a privilege?
2) How come no cases are coming forward, to reinstate a felon's right (or privilege) to vote. . .or is owning a gun a more important right to felons?
-Kisov
As far as I am concerned a convicted felon shouldn't have any rights or privileges! They gave them up when they were convicted. And that doesn't stop at just owning a gun or not being able to vote. Driving is also a privilege. They owe society for thier crime/crimes. I think if Mr. Bean is given the opportunity to have a gun again he would probably do crime again. Your thoughts??? 
However, it is important to realize that not all felonies are gun related. Mr. Bean's was not. . .I believe he was convicted of forgery or some type of economic crime. Poor poor Winona, being convicted of felony shoplifting, will also never be allowed to vote or own a gun. Do these crimes warrant someone not being about to exercise the rights that make America truly great?
-Kisov
-Kisov
[QUOTE]They owe society for thier crime/crimes. I think if Mr. Bean is given the opportunity....
when he went to prison didn't have pay back what he owed to society?? isn't that the point of prison??
when he went to prison didn't have pay back what he owed to society?? isn't that the point of prison??
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the right of felons to vote or not varied from state to state. The same could be true in the case of firearms.
In any event, I must disagree with Mom here - even if the felony is gun-related (or, regarding the right to voted, related to, say, voter fraud). This is why we have finite sentences. If someone is convicted of a felony and completes a prison term of five years or twenty years or whatever, s/he has served their time. At the end of the prison term (and/or once damages and fines are paid, community service worked off, probation completed, whatever), the punishment should end. If the right to vote or to bear arms is to be part of the punishment, it should be part of the sentence - and should be decided by a judge or jury on a case to case basis. To assume that every felon should be subject to the same punishment for life strikes me as being unjust.
According to the Bill of, er, Rights, the bearing of arms is a right, not a privilege: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That said, I'm one of those who would question the individual right to bear arms being guaranteed anywhere, but this is probably not the place to start debating the Second Amendment.
In any event, I must disagree with Mom here - even if the felony is gun-related (or, regarding the right to voted, related to, say, voter fraud). This is why we have finite sentences. If someone is convicted of a felony and completes a prison term of five years or twenty years or whatever, s/he has served their time. At the end of the prison term (and/or once damages and fines are paid, community service worked off, probation completed, whatever), the punishment should end. If the right to vote or to bear arms is to be part of the punishment, it should be part of the sentence - and should be decided by a judge or jury on a case to case basis. To assume that every felon should be subject to the same punishment for life strikes me as being unjust.
According to the Bill of, er, Rights, the bearing of arms is a right, not a privilege: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That said, I'm one of those who would question the individual right to bear arms being guaranteed anywhere, but this is probably not the place to start debating the Second Amendment.
QUOTE
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the right of felons to vote or not varied from state to state. The same could be true in the case of firearms.
My significant other is a convicted felon, and he can still vote. He can not carry a gun, which is fine with him, but I think it's important to understand that not all felons have that title because they commited violent crimes. In my other's case, it was a high school prank at the age of 18. He stole a fuse out of a friend's car stereo, insuring that the stereo wouldn't turn on, but a security gaurd caught him in the act. The friend did not press charges, but the DA picked it back up to make an example of him, and he got charged with "Criminal Tampering," which is a felony in the state of Colorado.
I think this needs to be looked at on an individual basis. People do stupid things, especially in their youth, but not all of them are a danger to society.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.