'The' Gun Thread (Page 30)

No, 20,000 is too many. There should be no carry laws. there should be no "permitting. It should just be constitutional carry... that sort of what "bear" means.

I think there should be prohibited people, and in order to sell to those that are permitted, then we have to have a check....

That's pretty much it for me. Oh... and the... if you comit a crime with a gun it's life in prison. If you posses as a prohibited person, or sell to one... life in prison.

Then you could just leave the other 95% and 40 million law abiding people to enjoy the rights granted to them the day they drew their first breath.

You have brought this up before Tony, and agree with you that I do not like it. But the problem is if they have their rights reinstated, then they are not doing anything illegal. They can legally purchase a gun, anywhere they want. I do not agree they should, but that is not a loop hole of criminals buying guns illegally.

He posted an article earlier that gave examples of shockingly easy reinstatement for violent felons very soon after release. I'm not down with that.

I am down for people turning their life around and acting right and getting their rights back sometime in the future... but violent felons... hu no. Non violent offenders after 10-15 years of keeping their nose clean and productive memebers of society... sure.

That's exactly why we need to close the Gun Show Loop Hole.  So the bad guys CAN'T buy them legally. 

  This thing is gonna pass the Senate.  Along party line or not-who cares.  The 'nayes' will have to answer to their voters back home.  The NRA and gun lobbys are not the only players with money to spend these days.  Our elected officials want nothing but to be our RE-elected officials.  They are gonna move to where the money is; if that's Gabby Giffords moeny, So Be It.

As much as it pains me, I have to back Tony on this one.  I've got a good friend of mine who had a Felony conviction for about 15 years.  He spent $400, got a lawyer, and applied to the judge to have his conviction set aside.  The judge agreed and set aside his conviction and specifically restored all of his civil rights on the order.

I don't really have a problem with this either, because we have a system that decides who gets to lose their rights, so what's wrong with the system that decides who can get them back.

There are other avenues one can pursue as well through Pardon's and such.

I've got another buddy that I used to work with who has a Felony drug charge from when he was 18.  He's now 45, married, two kids, Director at a large corporation and leads a model life.  I don't think there's very many people who would have an issue with him getting his rights back.  Unfortunately for him, his charge was a federal charge so he'd have to get a presidential pardon.  doh

I'm not too worried about the person who applies to have their rights re-instated legally.....he's not likely to be the person who goes on a crime spree.

In fact, since this is another one of those deals where someone brings up a far-fetched deal, as if it has any bearing at all on crime, can anyone tell me how many convicted felons, who had their records expunged, went on to purchase a gun and use it in a crime?

Seriously...............it's laughable.

Perhaps this is the most isolated case.... Tony really needs to find that article again.

One case was a guy that actually went to prison for shooting someone... got out, reinstated... shot someone else. Maybe one out of a million... but no  less wrong.

But this tangent we are one is a legitamate one.... lots of laws, no enforcment. Criminals have nothing to loose... I have a ton... who do you think gets punished with new laws?

OK I'll play and argue against "universal background" checks on "it's merits"

1.  The stated purpose of background checks is to (a) prevent those who are not legally permitted to have a gun from purchasing or obtaining a gun.  (b) by so doing also increase the governments ability to successfully prosecute those that engage in illegal activity associated with the illegal purchase of a firearm.

2.  The proposed legislation fails on both accounts, and in addition to failing on its intended/stated purpose unduly burdens law abiding citizens.

3.  The "universal background" check fail primarily because they are not "universal"  Due to Federal and State privacy rights and laws, coupled with state and federal confidentiality laws pertaining to psychiatric/psychological treatment information regarding individuals suffering from mental illnesses or voluntarily seeking psychological treatment will not be captured by the "universal background" checks.  Bottom line, highly unlikely that the background checks as currently proposed would have ever caught Mr. Lanza.

4.  The "universal background" checks as it relates to the mentally ill may violate the equal protection clause because it disproportionately captures individuals that are involuntarily committed or treated for mental illness.  Those involuntary treatments are or may be caught by the proposed "universal background checks".  It is disproportionate based upon socio economics because those with money and insurance are more likely to be treated voluntarily and thus may be able to avail themselves of the privacy and confidentiality protections that may not exist with involuntary commitment or treatment.

5.  The justification of a registry will allow for better more zealous prosecution I find specious at best.  Especially in light of the current administrations abysmal record on the prosecution of current Federal firearms violations.  The DOJ has specifically said that CURRENTLY under the current back ground check system that they do not have the man power to prosecute individuals that lie on background checks.  So, we are to believe that with an increase in records keeping this priority decision and man power issue will be solved?

6.  The current "universal background check" bills go much further than just "closing the gun show loopholes"...again read the proposed bills, don't take my word for it.  The majority of what is in the bills, and what the requirements would be are not being talked about.  Ask yourself this question:  Why not?  I believe that the background check bill goes too far, and takes more steps then are necessary to meet the stated goals of back ground checks. 

7.  You dismiss the  fear of the government outright with the use of the dismissive "black helicopter" phrase.  However,  this ignores the factual history of the passage of the Bill of Rights.  It's not a fear of the government per se.  It's a fear of human nature and those that are in the government.  It is so universal as to be a truism that men are corruptible, and as such, regardless of the form of government, those that rule always overstep the limitations of that government for their own personal reasons, be it wealth, power or other reasons.  The founding fathers and framers had such a fear of the abuses of government that they demanded after the passage of the Constitution that certain enumerated God given/natural rights be explicitly protected.  Of these is the 2nd Amendment.  So you may dismiss the notion of "black helicopters' but of course the idea behind "black helicopters" men like Madison did not dismiss and felt that it was a reality to be guarded against.

8.  You do know that Federally there is a law prohibiting a federal register of gun owners, and in many states there are similar laws.  So, my question is, what has changed that warrants a rescission from these laws prohibiting gun registries?  Violent crimes are consistently declining, gun crimes are declining?  so what is the reason for the change?   

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/opinion/rewrite-the-second-amendment.html

Putting aside how you might feel about his use of the words "reasonable," "zealot," and others, as well as some of the opinions he espouses about what people might or might not think, what do you think about the idea of a 2nd Amendment reboot that does not leave the constitutionality of your right to bear arms for your individual self defense hanging on a 5-4 decision of the 2008 version of the Supreme Court?

I have no interest in anecdotal stories of how a new law could prevent it from happening.  I'm interested in major reform on how we prosecute and sentence violent criminals.

Look, here is the ONE THING I've seen work to reduce crime in the 27 years I've been involved in law enforcement:

Target that very low percentage of people who commit the majority of violent crimes.  Get them long prison sentences that remove them from society.  It's a simple process to do on a small scale, I've been a part of it.  The structure is in place to do it on a very large scale, but we'd need to make some room in our prisons and go back to mandatory sentences.  Those last two words are tough to get through since some idiots decided to do that with drug laws and screw it up to a point where it's now taboo in the justice system to even say the words.

Anti-gun people want to add more laws to a broken system..........that's an absolutely ridiculous notion that will have ZERO effect on the crime rate.

Interesting... since that was the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "mandatory sentences". Yes I was saying it, but you didn't see me cringe when I did it. I also said let all the drug offenders out. Mandatory sentence guidlines put out over drugs was a truly ridiculous  experiment.

I'm not at all familiar with the ATF side, but from a state standpoint my buddy most definitely got all of his rights back.  I read the order and it specifically stated all civil rights.  He applied for his handgun purchase permit, and was approved.  He applied for his CCW and was approved and carry's every day.

I also agree with LB that guys like this are not the problem.  If my buddy was going to go rob a store he would have just gone and robbed the store, not spend the time/money to get the gun legally.  Heck, now that i think about it the last thing I'd want is a gun that I bought legally to use in a crime.  I wouldn't want any paperwork anywhere tracing it back to me. lol