State program to seize "illegal" guns gaining notice

[GoPackGo]

The kid showed he does not respect the laws and cant be trusted in society.
Though I will agree if a non-violent felon shows they can be useful safe (relatively) members of society they should earn the right back.

Its a constitutional right, and if he's given up his life, liberty or property pursuant to the guilty verdict then I think he's learned his lesson.

Caught speeding? You broke the law turn in your guns.

Parking Ticket? Same

Perhaps these people should be forced to wear some sort of scarlet letter?

 

[Tom]

This is my understanding as well. Banned from having one because of a misdemeanor is, well, dumb.

Its not A misdemeanor. Its domestic violence.

I can't think of a better reason to take firearms away from someone.

 

[TheVrolok]

So they're enforcing already written laws? ..

 

[piasabird]

Some people in Missouri want a law proposed that says any politician that proposes legislation to restrict the right to bear arms is breaking the law. I wonder how that will work out? That was on the Radio thismorning.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

They could spend that money actually targeting gangs... but no.. they go after the easy targets.

Pure stupidity.

Well duh. Thei way they get to act like commandos and run through homes and they don't have to really worry about being shot at. Then the department heads get to say, hey we did something. We got XX number of guns off the streets, when all they really did was take guns away from people that had them for self defense.
I'm in the minority in thinking that once you've served your time in jail, prison, you should have all the rights of a free man. Why is it ok to deny someone of their 2nd Amendment Rights for the rest of their life? Try setting up the system to deny felons their 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Amendment rights, if they were to either commit a crime in the future or be suspected of doing so. How do you think that would go over. Mr. Ex-Felon, Since you committed a crime 25 years ago, you no longer have a right to a jury trial, you must testify against yourself, Mr. So and So is suing you and you have no right to a jury trial to defend yourself in civil court, and oh, by the way, since you don't have the 8th Amendment protecting you, we get to beat the hell out of you every day.

 

[WackyDan]

Well duh. Thei way they get to act like commandos and run through homes and they don't have to really worry about being shot at. Then the department heads get to say, hey we did something. We got XX number of guns off the streets, when all they really did was take guns away from people that had them for self defense.
I'm in the minority in thinking that once you've served your time in jail, prison, you should have all the rights of a free man. Why is it ok to deny someone of their 2nd Amendment Rights for the rest of their life? Try setting up the system to deny felons their 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Amendment rights, if they were to either commit a crime in the future or be suspected of doing so. How do you think that would go over. Mr. Ex-Felon, Since you committed a crime 25 years ago, you no longer have a right to a jury trial, you must testify against yourself, Mr. So and So is suing you and you have no right to a jury trial to defend yourself in civil court, and oh, by the way, since you don't have the 8th Amendment protecting you, we get to beat the hell out of you every day.

I agree with you in part. However criminal recidivism rates are pretty high depending on the crime. I don't think those that were violent offenders, repeat offenders, etc should ever have that right granted back to them.

 

[zinfamous]

Ahem. National Socialist German Workers Party. Nazis also disarmed the public, nationalized a lot of businesses, controlled other businesses, removed religion, established a huge amount of personal control over people's lives, instituted mandatory public work programs, established the National Socialist Teachers League to teach the National Socialist creed in government schools with no dissent allowed, opposed big business and capitalism in general. It's only real right wing position was its nationalism, which resulted directly from its bitter enemy, international communism, and its abolition of labor unions which were part and parcel of its abolition of all other power bases.

I still don't know why enforcing a law that says felony/criminalization revokes one's right from firearm ownership is akin to sending jews off to the gas chambers.

Maybe I need more coffee...just can't wrap my head around that one.

I thought both sides of the fence tend to agree that felony convictions/criminal acts are ample reason to deny certain rights?

 

[sao123]

I still don't know why enforcing a law that says felony/criminalization revokes one's right from firearm ownership is akin to sending jews off to the gas chambers.

Maybe I need more coffee...just can't wrap my head around that one.

I thought both sides of the fence tend to agree that felony convictions/criminal acts are ample reason to deny certain rights?

because misdemeanor DV complaints are not felony convictions.

 

[werepossum]

I still don't know why enforcing a law that says felony/criminalization revokes one's right from firearm ownership is akin to sending jews off to the gas chambers.

Maybe I need more coffee...just can't wrap my head around that one.

I thought both sides of the fence tend to agree that felony convictions/criminal acts are ample reason to deny certain rights?

That wasn't Mono's point; his point was that those who most demand tolerance seldom give it. My point was that the Nazis were at least as left wing as right wing, although after Hitler took over the entire country they were not really recognizable in conventional terms.

And yes, I think both sides generally agree that felony convictions should remove one's Second Amendment rights, for no rights are absolute - or can be, within a society with laws and government. However, many things in this story are either misdemeanor convictions (which by nature are not serious crimes) or are merely charges or accusations resulting in minor precautionary sanctions. This comes back to tolerance; some politicians who otherwise demand tolerance in all things are fine with denying Constitutional rights for things they do not value, even because of an accusation of domestic abuse. If you doubt this, think about gay marriage or welfare and then ask yourself if any of these politicians would support removing one's right to gay marriage or welfare for a misdemeanor conviction or a restraining order. These aren't even specific Constitutional rights, but they ARE things these politicians value.

 

[klinc]

link



read the link for more.

A few comments.

1. Assault/misdemeanor/battery = Gun ban. This is absurd IMO. Assault can happen in any number of ways including falsifying a report. Now I wouldn't suspect that happens a lot but the mere fact that it could deny someone the right to possess a handgun for self defense is going too far for such a light charge.

2. Notice that the "illegal" gun seized from the gun owner was in a safe locked up. Then he's arrested in front of his child and taken to jail.

This is grrrrrreat!

3. "known to be some of the most dangerous people walking around" - Like the ones with restraining orders? Wow.

4. "Sometimes the guns are used in murders before the state can retrieve them" - Really Einstein? How about people will be murdered regardless of who is on a list? Not very bright.

5. The bright side of all this is the "illegal gun" owner simply has to deny he has the weapon. A search warrant is required otherwise.

What I do not like is the list being based on misdemeanor crimes. Just because your x wife got a retraining order on you, or you got in a bar fight, shouldn't give the State the right to forcibly take your protection and throw you in jail.

Fucking Cali!

I think there should be rule in this forum that every issue regarding law should start with Constitutionally speaking.

For it to be unconstitutional someone needs to take one for the team. Someone need to get jailed who will appeal and it will end up before judges which will decide if its constitutional or not.