h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well that is much more sensible but I havent seen that many police at police stations when Ive been visitng anyway. Its normally civillian support that are working on the front desk.

Why not say "I'd like to turn in a firearm" *before* revealing said weapon?

So that'll be walking into a cop shop and saying 'I've got a gun', then?

Yep. Only with added conscientiousness.

back to the difficulty that the U.S. faces with controlling its firearms:

'The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to suspects on terror watch lists.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270142,00.html

It should be noted that in many jurisdictions in the U.S., constitutional rights are routinely denied to individuals: for example, in many states individuals who are convicted of what is termed a 'felony' are *never* allowed to vote again, even after 'paying their debt to society', whether through prison time, payment of fines, community service, or any other effort to remediate their offence.

To me, coming from a nation for which the franchise is truly an inalienable right (convicts in prison vote), the disenfranchisement that is routine in the U.S. is simply barbaric.

It is interesting that for some the inviolable constitutional right to own a firearm is more fundamental than the privilege of casting a vote.

Barbaric? Isn't that a bit of hyperbole?

I don't think it's hyperbole.

To me, forever stripping a person of citizenship (for what else is disenfranchisement?) is barbaric.

No, that really is hyperbole.

"It should be noted that in many jurisdictions in the U.S., constitutional rights are routinely denied to individuals: for example, in many states individuals who are convicted of what is termed a 'felony' are *never* allowed to vote again, even after 'paying their debt to society', whether through prison time, payment of fines, community service, or any other effort to remediate their offence.

To me, coming from a nation for which the franchise is truly an inalienable right (convicts in prison vote), the disenfranchisement that is routine in the U.S. is simply barbaric."

Hang on, if it's a *constitutional right* then they wouldn't be able to have it taken from them since doing so is breaking the highest laws in the United States. Are you sure that the US constitution doesn't stipulate that only non-felons (past or present) can vote? If this is illegal, why don't these people take those preventing them from voting to the Supreme Court?

I believe taking votes away from ex-convicts was one of the ways Bush got himself re-elected. After all a large proportion of ex-convicts are black and wouldn´t vote for him.

The fifteenth ammendment to the U.S. Constitution:

'Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'



There seems to be an assumption that the right to vote is fundamental, not something granted by the Constitution, but rather, a right *guaranteed* by the Constitution.

Of course, there is also the potential implication that as long as it's not on account of race, color, or 'previous condition of servitude', the right is fair game for denial (i.e., gender, religion, political afficliation, etc.)

None of that refers to "previous convictions", though, so whilst you can argue that it's wrong that the United States prevents people with previous convictions from voting (I certainly would, although I don't think serving prisoners should be allowed to vote) I don't think you can argue it's unconstitutional.

"Of course, there is also the potential implication that as long as it's not on account of race, color, or 'previous condition of servitude', the right is fair game for denial (i.e., gender, religion, political afficliation, etc.)erm"

I don't think you any US court could seriously deny the vote on any of those basis, certainly not "political affiliation" which would negate the whole idea of a representative democracy.

I agree with both of your posts, Zagreb. I erred in the initial post on this subject: I should have said that they are 'quite happy to suspend rights' or 'quite happy to suspend constitutionally protected rights'.

As for suspending voting rights on the basis of political affiliation, it is being argued that precisely this has happened both in in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, although those suspensions were indirect.

"I agree with both of your posts, Zagreb. I erred in the initial post on this subject: I should have said that they are 'quite happy to suspend rights' or 'quite happy to suspend constitutionally protected rights'."

But they're not constitutionally-protected, that's my point. In fact, unless they existed as rights before, they've not even been suspended full-stop.

"As for suspending voting rights on the basis of political affiliation, it is being argued that precisely this has happened both in in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, although those suspensions were indirect."

"Indirect" presumably meaning "because they had previous convictions". Sorry, but you can't take people whose voting-rights have been taken-away for one specific reason and then insinuate it was about another. Jeb Bush wasn't capable of forcing anyone to have previous convictions.

and, back to my original point, the argument is being advanced by the NRA that it is fundamentally important for suspected terrorists to have access to firearms while society at large is quite happy to say that a fifty-year-old upstanding citizen who got caught with a large sack of pot when he was in university can *never* vote again. That amounts to a mandatory minimum life-sentence.

I find the NRA argument quite wacky.

Sorry Zagreb, what I was referring to in the Florida case is the allegations that people who *were not* felons were removed from voting lists on the pretext that they *were* felons.

"and, back to my original point, the argument is being advanced by the NRA that it is fundamentally important for suspected terrorists to have access to firearms while society at large is quite happy to say that a fifty-year-old upstanding citizen who got caught with a large sack of pot when he was in university can *never* vote again. That amounts to a mandatory minimum life-sentence.erm

I find the NRA argument quite wacky."

I agree. But the NRA seem to be quite fundamentalist about access to firearms and appear to resist any attempts to tighten-up laws even where those laws are not about subverting law-abiding citizens right to bear arms but instead about preventing crimes taking place. Unfortunately, pressure-groups like the NRA tend to be like this about their pet-issue.

"Sorry Zagreb, what I was referring to in the Florida case is the allegations that people who *were not* felons were removed from voting lists on the pretext that they *were* felons."

Ah, I see. Although you do say "allegations" which suggests that no such wrongdoing has actually been proved. Personally, I think the possibility that such a thing could happen demonstrates the problems with denying a citizen the right to vote.

As far as I understand, they are still allegations at this point.