If a user of illegal drugs without conviction loses their civil right

to keep and bear arms under federal law {see 18 USC 922}, why doesn't that person lose all other civil rights? How can a person lose a civil right without due process protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?

In another thread, I observed "If Limbaugh owns a firearm, he has committed a felony, 10 years prison"

...part of the paperwork you have to fill out basicly asks if you are a dope fiend, yes or no? If you are but answer no, you are in violation of part six (I think) of what you have posted. I would guess (I am no lawyer) that if it could be proved that pigboy was a doper prior to the purchase of a fire arm he would be guilty of lying on a federal form and be subject to further penalties.

I have a problem with the fact that a non-violent offender, even after having theoretically "served their debt to society" is essentially barred from most aspects of civic life. It seems that we,as a country, want to talk about rehabilitation, but once that process is over, encourage recitivism by forever stigmatizing the convict. There is no easy answer, but what we're doing now is not working.

*Addition*..and if Limbaugh has in fact been illegally purchasing federally controlled substances, then he is a felon and should receive the treatment he advocates for drug convictions.

Generally speaking, if time is served then I believe a convict's debt to society is paid. I oppose scarlet letters of any kind. If there is an issue with recidivism for certain crimes, such as child rape, then keep them in prison.

and the sex offender registry are dragging human rights down

Ya think?????

Because felons also lose the right to vote. I doubt anyone would suggest that voting is not a civil right.

On edit, I believe that too many rights are waived before conviction under the so-called war on drugs. Consider civil forfeiture. Does anyone think that it'a a good thing?

exception. In some or perhaps all states, when civil rights are restored it includes RKBA, e.g. Florida.

Perhaps nobody but a handful of right wing extremists and loonies like John AshKKKroft pretend that owning a gun is some sort of civil right....

The sane world considers the second amendment to refer to collective rights, and always has. Said Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...(S)urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms."

actually there are quite a few DU'ers (being neither right-wing extremists or loonies like John Ashcroft) that do believe that the 2nd amendment makes owning a gun a civil right, and these same people are also very tolerant of gun regulation. To misrepresent the opposing argument, that of some gun-rights DU'ers, and suggest they are arguing for a regulationless, chaotic arms bazaar culture is ridiculous. Gun shows actually have a stringent federal background check, is it enough? Probably not, how can it be improved?

Ashcroft having gutted the Constitution, shouldn't we be more concerned with all that's been lost rather than the little scraps he keeps around?

Enquiring minds want to know......