The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 10, 2012, 08:17 PM   #26
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,494
And, as pointed out by a previous post in opposition to my view, how do we predict which violent felons are still violent when they come up for parole?

It wasn't always this way. At least in the 1800s, people who committed armed felonies did their time in prison and were able to legally buy a firearm the day they were released from prison. I don't know when that changed. But, just as a f'rinstance, I stumbled across an article just today about a guy who back in 1983 tried to kill his ex-wife with a knife. He very nearly succeeded; she sustained multiple stab wounds, very nearly died, and she was left partially paralyzed. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and served seven. It is now 25 years later and he has not committed any further crimes.

I concede that it's far from guaranteed that every felon who is granted parole is safe to be out on the streets, but it's also not guaranteed that every violent felon will be a repeat offender after serving his time. It's also not at all certain that guns are the issue. The two creeps who murdered the Petit family in Connecticut a few years ago had no violent felonies on their records prior to the incident. They didn't use a gun. In fact, I believe the baseball bat they used to beat Dr. Petit was found in the house after they broke in. They killed the wife by strangling her, then tied the two daughters to their beds, doused the house with gasoline, and dropped a match on the way out.

Sure was a good thing they couldn't buy a gun.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 09:01 PM   #27
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Aquila, I think the prohibitons came in with the CGA68. Before that there were no FFL's to write down or check who purchased what,
hermannr is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 10:46 AM   #28
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermannr
Aquila, I think the prohibitons came in with the CGA68. Before that there were no FFL's to write down or check who purchased what,
I think that's probably correct. I don't know how to look up statistics, but if there is any validity to the theory that barring convicted felons from possessing firearms prevents crime, if we could find historical statistics on violent crime we SHOULD see a very perceptible drop starting in 1969. I'll bet it's not there.

Certainly, the draconian gun laws in England and Australia have had precisely the opposite effect. Violent crime is up by orders of magnitude since the populace was disarmed.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 11:22 AM   #29
Woody55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
I don't have a problem with restricting purchases to those 18 or older. I wouldn't mind not worrying about whether my kids were buying weapons - back when they were under 18.

I don't have that much of a problem with restricting purchases so that violent criminals can't walk into Gander Mountain and buy something. Probably using a felony convinction is too broad. On the other hand there are some violent misdemeanors that we might think about. But it's close enough.

I don't mind needing a license to own a fully automatic weapon.

I'm a little concerned about the move towards getting people's medical histories on line and winnowing out those with severe violent psychological problems. I wouldn't want it to evolve to where the government has a small army of LPCs, psychologists etc. who look deeply into your eyes and decide if you are worthy to exercise a fundamental right.
Woody55 is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 11:36 AM   #30
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,093
Hehe, back in the 80's when I was 10 years old I could walk into the local wal-mart and buy shotgun shells in southern Missoui. (town population 2500)

I think the theory with felons is that offenders tend to repeat at some time or another. It's a generalization, not particularly fair, but that's the reasoning. So they decided to not make it easy for them to buy guns. It gives politicians the excuse that they "tried" to stop it.

Many of our laws today are more about emotion than logic. IE "Will someone PLEASE think of the children, PLEASE".
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 11:53 AM   #31
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Violent crime:

A crime where the actor used physical force and knew or reasonably should have known that such force would injure, seriously injure or kill another person and/or cause significant damage to another person's property.

Felony:

See Violent Crime
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 12:15 PM   #32
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,395
Quote:
I think the theory with felons is that offenders tend to repeat at some time or another.
Unfortunately, our current penal system makes recidivism for felons a difficult thing to avoid. Impossible conditions are often tied to parole, and mental illness or substance-abuse issues that may have led to the initial offense are left unaddressed. Certain interpretations of "three strike" laws make it very easy to turn misdemeanors into felonies.

The definition of "felony" is far broader than it was during the founding days. As such, I'm always leery of seeing someone stripped of gun ownership for life over a youthful indiscretion or for writing a couple of bad checks.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Last edited by Tom Servo; September 11, 2012 at 12:16 PM. Reason: The spelling filter did not catch "fleons." Honest.
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 12:21 PM   #33
buckhorn_cortez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 403
Quote:
"What if someone is mentally unstable, should they own firearms?"
Then outlaw being mentally unstable since that's the root cause of that problem...a law against being mentally unstable would be equally as effective and another "gun law."
buckhorn_cortez is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 12:39 PM   #34
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,093
You can't make a medical condition a crime. People who willing choose to break the law had a choice.

I do think they need some sort of review, say at 10 years after release. If the person has been holding down a job and seems to have their act together then a restoration of rights should be considered.
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 01:17 PM   #35
buckhorn_cortez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 403
Quote:
You can't make a medical condition a crime. People who willing choose to break the law had a choice.
Sure you can - look at the the 10 of thousands of ridiculous laws that are currently on the books...

Obviously, you missed the irony in my comment - making it illegal to be mentally unstable versus another gun law being equally as effective - THAT'S THE POINT - more gun laws would work just as well.

My Lord - quit taking everything literally....
buckhorn_cortez is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 01:40 PM   #36
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
I believe in the "Gun a Month" rule.
I might be able to support it if it's modified to "At least a gun a month" rule.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!
pgdion is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 03:46 PM   #37
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
The SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is not without restrictions, and I agree.

Here are some restrictions with which I agree.
Age, felons, full auto weapons, mental incompetents. Other weapons such as rocket launchers should be banned as they are.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 03:50 PM   #38
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,168
No gun control period. Once the door is opened even a crack there will be a rush to squeeze in more..

Enforce the ones on the books.
JWT is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 04:08 PM   #39
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGunowner
I think the theory with felons is that offenders tend to repeat at some time or another. It's a generalization, not particularly fair, but that's the reasoning. So they decided to not make it easy for them to buy guns. It gives politicians the excuse that they "tried" to stop it.
But they failed. It's still easy for criminals and "prohibited persons" to buy guns -- it's just not legal. "Hot" guns are readily available in every state, and the ex-felons and gang bangers all know where to find them.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 04:21 PM   #40
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,112
^ yep, we certainly don't need anymore laws. One thing for sure is the federal gov't needs to stay out of it. At least at the state level you can choose the level of control that you are ok with. There are what, about 5 states on the couldn't live there list and about 6 I would move to in a heartbeat if my state got worse (meaning good gun laws and i'd like to live there). I pay a lot of taxes. If a state wants my money, they better support my views or I'll simply move elsewhere. I'd have no problem living in WY. I think states need to consider this when making their laws.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!
pgdion is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 07:36 PM   #41
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
But they failed. It's still easy for criminals and "prohibited persons" to buy guns -- it's just not legal. "Hot" guns are readily available in every state, and the ex-felons and gang bangers all know where to find them.
Agree. This is exactly the bunch the law is supposed to keep guns away from owning. I would imagine after a few months in prison a guy knows who to see if he wants a gun when he gets out.

For those who support some "reasonable" restrictions, exactly which guns laws passed after 1934 is keeping us safer and is worth burdening or prohibiting law abiding citizens?

I have a problem with any law that prohibits possession of an item rather than the irresponsible or violent behavior if the individual. And if the feared behavior is already illegal then why restrict the item?
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old September 12, 2012, 08:40 AM   #42
cannonfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 497
Quote:
I have a problem with any law that prohibits possession of an item rather than the irresponsible or violent behavior if the individual. And if the feared behavior is already illegal then why restrict the item?

Honestly I think the idea (at least partial) behind prohibiting felons from owning/possessing guns is for the ability of LEO to arrest someone just for possessing it and hopefully prevent a crime in the future.

That is not too clear but hopefully this example will clear it up.

Lets say a "gang banger" who just got out of prison for beating up a rival gang member is back on the streets hanging out with the same old crowd he was before; obviously up to no good. But for what ever reason they get searched (flipped of the police, made threats, suspicious activity, etc) and long and behold they find a gun on him. Hey look they have a charge against him! Even though the guy did not commit a murder or armed robbery with the gun, it would be perceived that hanging out with the gang, it was only a matter of time before he did commit such a crime.

Personally I don't think giving felons their rights back is the right thing. Even if it is a non-violent charge. Sorry you make a mistake of sleeping with a 13 year old girl (who you thought was 18) and you should be able to own a gun and vote? Who is to say that you wont go back to the parents house and kill them for sending you to prison? Sorry no. I don't believe that. Some of you are saying that they should make the penalties harder. Well wouldn't taking away our basic rights because we committed a felony constitute as harsher punishment? By harsher punishment you mean that you want them in jail longer... on tax payer dollars, in over crowded facilities, where inmate rights groups pusher for easier time in prison (tvs, radios, trailers for them and their wives/girlfriend for "fun" time). You know the consequences of your actions and should think about them before you commit a crime.

For example. My father is in prison on charges that I think are excessive for what he is guilty of (he admitted what he was really guilty of to me). The jury decided he was guilty of the actual act but in reality he was only guilty for not reporting the crime to the police. Either way I still see him as a felon and I've told him to his face that he's getting what he deserves and that he should still be restricted with his rights when he gets out.

And a side note, my father teaches law classes to other inmates and helps with appeals. He is a very intelligent man who I think would still be helpful to society, but he should not be able to retain some of his rights when he gets out (he'll be in his 70s by then).
__________________
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti - Dante

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the planes for 9/11
cannonfire is offline  
Old September 12, 2012, 09:56 PM   #43
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
The legislators wrote a penalty for a crime when they wrote the law in the first place, they did not write, oh, BTW: the penalty is 2 years in prison and a lifetime of restrictions. They simple wrote the penalty for this hypothetical crime is 2 years. (or 20 years doesn't matter the principle is the same).

Kind of reminds me of the old show "branded", where the criminal was branded with the crime he had committed. Now, branding someone physically would be instantly challenged as "cruel and unusual", but is not the effect the same?

Back when I was a kid (Pre 1968) I purchased a rifle and a pistol when I was 16, from one of the true gun store in existence at the time, with my own money, and on my own. When I was 19 (still pre 1968) I was in the US Army, had a Top Secret clearance, with a BI so thorough that my relatives that lived in Canada and Europe were calling my parents and asking why the FBI (or rather their countries equivalent) was asking about me.

May I ask? I got my first gun at age 12, birthday present from my parents. So now, by the time I join the military had owed several rifles and pistols (still own all but one of them)...now, if all kids are so irresponsible, do you think I could have passed that BI?

Last edited by hermannr; September 12, 2012 at 10:16 PM.
hermannr is offline  
Old October 16, 2012, 05:41 AM   #44
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 406
quote
The SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd is not without restrictions, and I agree.

Here are some restrictions with which I agree.
Age, felons, full auto weapons, mental incompetents. Other weapons such as rocket launchers should be banned as they are.

i have to go with Jerry on that point, because thats what i consider common sence gun control.
__________________
Ruger:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlin: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfeild:XD .357sig 4",CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old October 16, 2012, 07:51 AM   #45
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Personally I don't think giving felons their rights back is the right thing. Even if it is a non-violent charge. Sorry you make a mistake of sleeping with a 13 year old girl (who you thought was 18) and you should be able to own a gun and vote? Who is to say that you wont go back to the parents house and kill them for sending you to prison? Sorry no. I don't believe that.
Who's to say that a law saying I can't vote or own a gun is going to stop me from doing whatever I want? If I'm going to commit the double homicide of your scenario then why would I have any problem buying a gun off Louie over here and doing it? Please, to even suggest that a law would make a difference is naive.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old October 16, 2012, 10:10 AM   #46
StainlessSteel215
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2012
Posts: 250
A federal foot in the door can lead to stripping away what piece is left. I get it now, and agree.

Last edited by Tom Servo; October 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM. Reason: Redacted stuff pertaining to closed thread
StainlessSteel215 is offline  
Old October 16, 2012, 10:11 AM   #47
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,185
Quote:
shall not be infringed" is a very simple statement. It's just too bad that more people can't understand plain English
There are many many direct quotes made by our founding Fathers that reference the 2nd amendment as it refers to the "law abiding man". It is not unreasonable to believe that our founding Fathers accepted that certain restrictions can, should or would be imposed against the "non- law abiding". They made that pretty clear when mentioning things like "shall not be construed to prohibit the law abiding man. etc...etc..etc.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old October 17, 2012, 02:41 PM   #48
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Lengthy, I know... Bear with me...

There's a lot of things I would like to change if given the opportunity.

**Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I aspire to be. I might not get the specific terminology correct, I may not have the best grasp on the aspects of the particular laws and definitions. I'm working with my best (albeit limited) understanding of the issues at hand. So don't flame me if I am mistaken on a particular point.**

First, I'll start with felonies. The current standard often lies with how many years you were (or could be, in some cases) sentenced to for the crime you've been convicted of. While that may be a good system to use as a starting point, the fact is that you can very easily become a felon for very minor crimes, depending on the sentence (or allowable/max sentence in some cases). Should it be 1 year? 2 years? More? I don't know... I do know that we could do a lot better with our prison and sentencing system. Why do I, as a taxpayer, need to spend $30k (number Wikipedia gave me) per year on a prisoner that broke a law, but could be sentenced to something productive, like community service? I know community service has its issues as a process, but it could be improved to efficient and effective levels with a little time and creativity. So now that we can establish that most, if not all, minor crime criminals can be punished via other than prison means, now the prisons have a little extra space to keep the violent folks behind bars.... But what to do with them? Again, we're paying $30k per prisoner per year... Make them earn it. I see a lot of DOT workers cutting grass on interstates and highways, why? Why can't we get some back-pay from prisoners who owe a debt to society? Why can't they go cut the darn grass and pick up trash? Why can't prisons buy up some surrounding land, buy some cows, shovels, rakes, and garden hoes? Make them milk the cows for the milk, tend the land for their vegetables, raise, butcher, and process livestock for meat... Overall, it would lower costs dramatically and recoup the initial expenditures.

... Off in the weeds ... Back to topic ...

So you can reduce the overall number of "felons" by re-aligning punishment for certain, non-violent crimes into community service. You embezzeled $10,000 from your employer? You must be good with numbers, guess what? Now you get to volunteer 10,000 hours at a free tax clinic and debt counseling company. Things like that... Find creative solutions for community service and keep non-violent offenders out of the prison system as much as possible. There's a lot of felons out there that probably shouldn't be in most of our eyes... Basically, the goal of all this would be to implement a plan to reduce the number of "felons" out there to the people that really and truly deserve the label and the lifetime prohibitions that accompany it.

Background checks.
I agree with them. I think they shoudl be expanded to include mental health checks. I do NOT agree that the mental health portion should be managed by the government, specifically NOT NICS. A database could be compiled by the private sector, paid for with a combination of BATFE funds and medical insurance, with mental health professionals entering a "No Go" next to that name. Your FFL calls in to NICS, receives the "Go" or "No Go" word. Then they call the crazy check database and receive a "Go" or "No Go". There would be zero of your personal medical information stored in the crazy check database. Only your name, DOB, address, SSN and a simple "No Go" entry, no medical information, I REPEAT: None of your personal medical information would be stored in the crazy check database. The determination of wether you are mentally fit to operate a firearm would be decided by your mental health professional (not your general practice physician) in conjunction with your family members. If there is no entry in the database, it would be assumed that your mental health is sound.

NFA
Get rid of the federal full-auto registry. Allow the manufacture of modern select-fire weapons. Keep the $200 tax stamp, but reduce the amount of time it takes to get the stamp back. If you can pass the NICS (and the crazy check) then why should there be any further restrictions? If the NICS check is ineffective at determining if a person has a clean record, then fix the NICS system because apparently a lot of peope with bad backgrounds can get "regular" guns if that's the case... The amount of time to purchase your select-fire weapon should be no longer than it takes the post office to deliver the $200 check, let the check clear the bank, put the tax stamp in an envelope and mail it back to you.

Suppressors, SBR's, SBS'... No gun is instantly made more deadly or more effective at killing something just because it has a shorter barrel or has a suppressor screwed onto the end of it... No restriction is what I say.

AOW's... Why do we regulate these again???

Destructive devices... Use the same rules as the full-auto above, but increase the tax stamp cost to $1000 for the launchers, and reduce it to $50 each for the projectiles they fire.

Handguns, rifles, shotguns: NICS and crazy check. Other than that, no restrictions on size, caliber, or capacity.

Carry. 2nd Amendment is good enough for all but sensitive areas. In order to carry in sensitive areas (government buildings, courthouses (except courtrooms), school zones, etc) you must apply for a permit with the state police in your state of residence. In order to apply for said permit, you would have to complete a qualification course with 8 hours of classroom instruction and live fire range instruction including basic, practical, and (dry fire) judgemental pistol courses. The provider of said training would have to be approved by the state police. Permit would be valid in all 50 states. Privately-owned businesses will not have their property rights infringed. They may post a nation-wide standardized 36" x 36" sign that carries the force of law that states firearms of any type are not allowed inside their buildings without consent. Penalty for violating a property owners written notice would be a $250 fine and 250 hours community service for first offense, double that for second offense, and double that for the third offense. Penalty for offenses beyond the third attempt would be given by a jury of peers in a fair trial.

Ammo
No restrictions except the existing laws regarding approved storage containers in place for smokeless and blackpowder.


I'm open to suggestions and constructive criticisms and a respectful discussion of any of these issues.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

Last edited by jgcoastie; October 17, 2012 at 02:54 PM. Reason: I had my AOWs and my DDs all fumblebumbled together...
jgcoastie is offline  
Old October 17, 2012, 03:19 PM   #49
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,246
Yes.
Limitations on crazy people from getting them. If you start getting reported as a nut then an investigation takes place and if you're found committed or just coockoo (technical term there) you lose your firearms. Thats what it seems we really need.

Limitations on illegal immigrants or criminals from getting them. I have nothing against legal immigrants with such, but with an absurdly open border illegal immigrants can too easily slip across the border.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old October 17, 2012, 05:32 PM   #50
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,734
What is that question on the 4473 about, BTW? Seems to ask if you've been adjudicated as something?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14975 seconds with 9 queries