18 USC 922(g) prescribes a violation of the Fifth Amendment
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Jon Roland
Sep 13, 2014, 2:46:30 PM9/13/14
to
There
seems to be a resistance to examining why 18 USC
922(g) prescribes a violation of the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
As argued in http://www.constitution.org/col/psrboa.htm any due process deprivation actually involves two steps: (1) disablement; and (2) deprivation proper. The two steps can be separated. But for there to be due process, each right must be disabled and deprived separately from other rights. Disablement and deprivation of one right does not authorize disablement or deprivation of a different right. Especially by a different jurisdiction.
Now federal courts do recognize some kinds of state court processes and decisions for matters like contract, property, probate, etc. But these are all distributive cases, deciding who has what property, not disablements or deprivations of fundamental rights of life, liberty, or property. Such deprivations are penal, and also require the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
State convictions of crimes do not, in general, explicitly disable or deprive the right to keep and bear arms in the sentencing order. That is done by statute, as though a statute could substitute for a separate judicial trial on that issue. It cannot. Such disablement and deprivation must be separately proved and decided by a court, not by an administrator.
It is an even more egregious violation of due process for a federal administrator to make a nonjudicial finding, without even a hearing, that the RKBA has been disabled by a proceeding in a state, or even a foreign country, that did not disable it. Remember, the RKBA is not just a property right. It is a liberty and even a life right.
There is also no constitutional authority to make it a crime to do something that is not otherwise a crime on the alleged ground that the right to do it has been disabled by a different jurisdiction where the right disablement was not even argued.
![Donate
Now!]()
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
As argued in http://www.constitution.org/col/psrboa.htm any due process deprivation actually involves two steps: (1) disablement; and (2) deprivation proper. The two steps can be separated. But for there to be due process, each right must be disabled and deprived separately from other rights. Disablement and deprivation of one right does not authorize disablement or deprivation of a different right. Especially by a different jurisdiction.
Now federal courts do recognize some kinds of state court processes and decisions for matters like contract, property, probate, etc. But these are all distributive cases, deciding who has what property, not disablements or deprivations of fundamental rights of life, liberty, or property. Such deprivations are penal, and also require the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
State convictions of crimes do not, in general, explicitly disable or deprive the right to keep and bear arms in the sentencing order. That is done by statute, as though a statute could substitute for a separate judicial trial on that issue. It cannot. Such disablement and deprivation must be separately proved and decided by a court, not by an administrator.
It is an even more egregious violation of due process for a federal administrator to make a nonjudicial finding, without even a hearing, that the RKBA has been disabled by a proceeding in a state, or even a foreign country, that did not disable it. Remember, the RKBA is not just a property right. It is a liberty and even a life right.
There is also no constitutional authority to make it a crime to do something that is not otherwise a crime on the alleged ground that the right to do it has been disabled by a different jurisdiction where the right disablement was not even argued.
-- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society http://constitution.org 13359 N Hwy 183 #406-144 twitter.com/lex_rex Austin, TX 78750 512/299-5001 jon.r...@constitution.org ----------------------------------------------------------
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages