Tennessee Gentleman wrote:
I also believe that there are some people (felons and mentally defectives) who should not be allowed to legally own firearms. I support the Background Checks and believe that those who commit felonies should not ever own firearms unless they have their civil rights restored which I think you can do, but have to pay money and hire a lawyer. My feeling there: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" part of the "time" is you do without some civil rights. I also think that Mental Health professionals should be required to enter into the NICs system or otherwise notify the system about those who are judged mentally defective and they should be punished if they don't do it. I think the NICs needs be be really kept up to date as much as possible.
I believe that there are some felons and mentally defective people who should not have firearms. But, if they are dangerous enough that we will not let them "legally" purchase firearms, then they should be kept away from society at large, because they can get firearms or other weapons and still cause injury, damage, or death. I also don't believe that a guy who uses a laptop to gain access to an unsecured wireless network is a felon. If the store is going to broadcast a radio signal which is unsecured, that should be public domain for as far as the signal can be received. I don't think a tax cheat should necessarily be barred for life from owning guns, but he can probably get his rights restored. If we are going down that path, however, a tax cheat should not be able to vote, get a passport, be immune from warrantless searches, including phone taps, etc. Why should a non violent felon have just his Second Amendment rights removed, but no others? That doesn't make much sense. The government should be able to house soldiers in his house anytime they feel like it, unless he goes to court, hires a lawyer, and pays to have all of his rights restored. That makes just about as much sense as telling him he can no longer own any firearms because he cheated on his taxes.
I think we actually need to separate the legal term "felony" into two different categories, non violent felony and violent felony. If you get convicted of a violent felony you lose virtually all of your rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, free speech rights, and freedom of religion. I don't want violent felons going to listen to Reverend Wright lambast America. It could incite violent felons to commit act's of violence against America.
On the other hand, if you get convicted of a non violent felony, you get all of your rights back as soon as your penance is completed, whatever that happens to be (community service, fine, jail time, prison time, etc.).
I also think that Mental Health professionals should be required to enter into the NICs system or otherwise notify the system about those who are judged mentally defective and they should be punished if they don't do it.
This is a little scary. I believe the unintended consequence could be that they would enter anyone they saw into the system as mentally defective just to do CYA. Otherwise, they could go to jail or be sued for everything they have if they don't judge all of their clients as mentally defective for the NICS system.
Imagine this scenario. The mental health professional sees a person, and doesn't judge them to be "mentally defective" so they don't submit the client to the NICS. Later on, that person does go nutso and shoots someone after purchasing a gun from a dealer, "legally". They'll go right after the mental health professional. It would be better for them to submit all clients names to the NICS, just in case. Just like lawyers suggesting that all women who file for divorce should take out a restraining order, just in case. That can deny people who have not been convicted, nor even charged with a crime, from possessing firearms for life. That's dangerous.