Reasonable Gun Laws ...
- Thread starter ICBentley
- Start date
- Status
oberkommando
New member
Kevin my friend don't be so quick to jump to conclusions you don't loose all your rights, or you would not have CIVIL RIGHTS (can you say "Rodney King?") or the right to due process (5th Amendment) .Not to mention the First Amendment right to free speech. But I will agree sometimes it seems as though they should loose all of their rights. 
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON
Do you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breakings laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.
A RAND
[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 31, 2000).]
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON
Do you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breakings laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.
A RAND
[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 31, 2000).]
walangkatapat
New member
oberkommando & Kevinw, Just in case you didn't know. Not just felons lose their gun rights, under the domestic violence law you now can lose your gun rights for being convicted of a MISDEMEANOR (RETROACTIVELY!)
------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Former felons can, in many cases, petition the courts to get their voting rights back.
Look at Bob Stewart who was selling the Maadi-Griffin .50BMG kits. I think he's a former felon. If convicted of the charges currently against him, he'll again be a felon sitting in jail; on what most agree are "trumped-up" charges.
Should he lose all his rights? Just because you are convicted of a felony doesn't mean that you are violent. Hell, I think "tax-evasion" is a felony. Why is it that someone who is convicted of a felony should have no right to self-defense with a gun? Can they not have children or grandchildren to protect?
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
Look at Bob Stewart who was selling the Maadi-Griffin .50BMG kits. I think he's a former felon. If convicted of the charges currently against him, he'll again be a felon sitting in jail; on what most agree are "trumped-up" charges.
Should he lose all his rights? Just because you are convicted of a felony doesn't mean that you are violent. Hell, I think "tax-evasion" is a felony. Why is it that someone who is convicted of a felony should have no right to self-defense with a gun? Can they not have children or grandchildren to protect?
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
First of all, there are some limitations to the reasonable right to bear arms. First being the term "arms" does not cover weapons of mass destruction. The term most definitely applies to personally transported and deployed weaponry. In medieval documents, catapults were never refered to as arms insofar as I have seen. On that thought, a howitzer is simply not something that should be entrusted to any one individual without some sort of community accountability. If this means licenses for howitzers, then so be it. Some things, like hand grenades, become a bit trickier. Having 1000 grenades in your basement is very dangerous. It is one of those things where even if there was no conscious misuse, the accidental misuse could result in catastrophic disaster. If civilians are allowed to own hand grenades, I have no problem with registration for the sole purpose of limiting the number owned. Rifles, machineguns, small cannon(20mm, etc) are all quite reasonable for lawful owners. I know people who would be quite responsible with such weaponry, and the storage of bullets is much safer than the storage of grenades. Criminals would be scared out of their minds if they had to face a homeowner with a MG-42, or a PKM, etc.
Arms does give us certain clear ownership rights and we must not let them be usurped. Destructive devices are a whole different level of classifications. The vast majority of DDs cannot be practically employed by the average US citizen, and far more importantly, few people would know how to, or be able to, properly store the majority of destructive devices. It is my belief that if communities want to organize their own militias, then these organizations may purchase destructive devices that will belong to the militia. This would keep more of the spirit of the RKBA close to the owner's home, yet would keep responsibility for the greater weapons of destruction in the hands of a group with must act via consensous.
In short, anyone here that thinks they have any right to own a tactical nuke need to get their heads out of their tailends and wake up. You have a right to own arms. Nuclear weapons go so far beyond arms in needs for maintainence, and destructive power they can't even remotely be classified as such.
------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist
The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
Arms does give us certain clear ownership rights and we must not let them be usurped. Destructive devices are a whole different level of classifications. The vast majority of DDs cannot be practically employed by the average US citizen, and far more importantly, few people would know how to, or be able to, properly store the majority of destructive devices. It is my belief that if communities want to organize their own militias, then these organizations may purchase destructive devices that will belong to the militia. This would keep more of the spirit of the RKBA close to the owner's home, yet would keep responsibility for the greater weapons of destruction in the hands of a group with must act via consensous.
In short, anyone here that thinks they have any right to own a tactical nuke need to get their heads out of their tailends and wake up. You have a right to own arms. Nuclear weapons go so far beyond arms in needs for maintainence, and destructive power they can't even remotely be classified as such.
------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist
The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
Why not howitzers?
Are you scared that a gang member will do a driveby with his howitzer?
Or that he'll take you out with his howitzer instead of a scoped rifle?
Have you ever watched the (muzzleloading - not (yet) verboten) cannon enthiusiasts enjoying their sport? Looks like a hoot.
To defend against government gone bad. Ask a civilian from the former yugoslavia (e.g. Croatia) how much fun it was when the other guys got the jets and bombs and you had hunting rifles. Oh; but giving a civilian a stinger missile will turn him into a terrorist. Or the guy with a missile who goes nuts and takes down a cargo plane - more. "If it saves one life" - a LOT of civilians were DELIBERATELY killed by aircraft that could act with impunity in former balkan wars - a lot more than any rogue wackos with stingers would have hurt.
Battler.
Are you scared that a gang member will do a driveby with his howitzer?
Or that he'll take you out with his howitzer instead of a scoped rifle?
Have you ever watched the (muzzleloading - not (yet) verboten) cannon enthiusiasts enjoying their sport? Looks like a hoot.
To defend against government gone bad. Ask a civilian from the former yugoslavia (e.g. Croatia) how much fun it was when the other guys got the jets and bombs and you had hunting rifles. Oh; but giving a civilian a stinger missile will turn him into a terrorist. Or the guy with a missile who goes nuts and takes down a cargo plane - more. "If it saves one life" - a LOT of civilians were DELIBERATELY killed by aircraft that could act with impunity in former balkan wars - a lot more than any rogue wackos with stingers would have hurt.
Battler.
If you violate or misuse a right you cant use it.
Ive always thought thats what the case was with violent felon's.And if their was any real punishment in our 'justice'system today Id be all for even those getting any 'violated' rights back but that process comes into question where have a system that has given a convicted murdered 7 years in prison and someone whos been caught with a certain amout of drugs around 15 years.
NOt to metion that many of are prisons are better equipped than our schools.
I really want to reemphasize Columbe's comment to make special efforst to make crimes with guns the haneous or extremist crimes is a dangerous path to follow.
Whats next check points for gun permits.
A crime's a crime I often feel the punishment should be given to the justice systme for not administering it to those who have been committing crimes with kinves,hands bats and guns for years.
'just because you are paranoid doesnt mean their not out to get you'
www.keepandbeararms.org
new pro site www.jbs.org
only lobby working to get us out of UN
------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
Ive always thought thats what the case was with violent felon's.And if their was any real punishment in our 'justice'system today Id be all for even those getting any 'violated' rights back but that process comes into question where have a system that has given a convicted murdered 7 years in prison and someone whos been caught with a certain amout of drugs around 15 years.
NOt to metion that many of are prisons are better equipped than our schools.
I really want to reemphasize Columbe's comment to make special efforst to make crimes with guns the haneous or extremist crimes is a dangerous path to follow.
Whats next check points for gun permits.
A crime's a crime I often feel the punishment should be given to the justice systme for not administering it to those who have been committing crimes with kinves,hands bats and guns for years.
'just because you are paranoid doesnt mean their not out to get you'
www.keepandbeararms.org
new pro site www.jbs.org
only lobby working to get us out of UN
------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
I fully support reasonable gun control measures. Particularly part of the GCA '68 which requires all firearms to have a unique serial number. When asked during my campaign if I supported reasonable gun control I could honestly say 'yes'. Seems that people have a different definitions of reasonable.
Brett Bellmore
New member
Jeff: Now you've got me curious; Just exactly what is the point of requiring all firearms to have unique serial numbers? I'm perfectly serious here, I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what utility those numbers would have, that could make up for the problems it causes.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
Two issues have been raised relative to my original post: (a) convicted felons and (b) those dishonorably discharged. In this post, I will attempt to amplify my position regarding these questions only.
CONVICTED FELONS. The idea that a felon's "debt to society is paid" when he completes his sentence is not universally true. Felons do not normally regain the right to vote, nor the right to serve on juries, nor the right to hold public office, nor (in most cases) the privilege of serving in the Armed Forces. While the Second Amendment does not specify that felons will not have the RKBA, neither does the Constitution stipulate the denial of these other rights. In addition -- and far more practically -- recidivism among criminals is VERY common. Most people do not want proven criminals to be armed -- and for good reason. This is why I initially termed this a "common sense" exception.
DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES. A query was raised re adequate due process for dishonorable discharges. Individuals who receive dishonorable discharges always receive painstaking review. First, a DD cannot be administratively directed; it results only from a Courts Martial verdict (which, by the way, is a Federal felony sentence). Further, only the most serious criminal convictions result in DDs. In addition, a full range of military judicial reviews is mandatory, including the comprehensive appellate process. Finally, service-wide administrative review boards (such as the Board of Correction for Naval Records, for the USN and the USMC) are also available as a non-judicial means of reversing a DD verdict. In sum, the service member who receives a DD: (a) has been convicted of a very serious crime; (b) has had an extensive range of due process safeguards, including both administrative and judicial appeals; and (c) has forfeited many rights and privileges, including those delineated above.
To summarize, individuals who are convicted of serious crimes (felonies) may be released from incarceration, but their "debt to society" is never fully expunged.
CONVICTED FELONS. The idea that a felon's "debt to society is paid" when he completes his sentence is not universally true. Felons do not normally regain the right to vote, nor the right to serve on juries, nor the right to hold public office, nor (in most cases) the privilege of serving in the Armed Forces. While the Second Amendment does not specify that felons will not have the RKBA, neither does the Constitution stipulate the denial of these other rights. In addition -- and far more practically -- recidivism among criminals is VERY common. Most people do not want proven criminals to be armed -- and for good reason. This is why I initially termed this a "common sense" exception.
DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES. A query was raised re adequate due process for dishonorable discharges. Individuals who receive dishonorable discharges always receive painstaking review. First, a DD cannot be administratively directed; it results only from a Courts Martial verdict (which, by the way, is a Federal felony sentence). Further, only the most serious criminal convictions result in DDs. In addition, a full range of military judicial reviews is mandatory, including the comprehensive appellate process. Finally, service-wide administrative review boards (such as the Board of Correction for Naval Records, for the USN and the USMC) are also available as a non-judicial means of reversing a DD verdict. In sum, the service member who receives a DD: (a) has been convicted of a very serious crime; (b) has had an extensive range of due process safeguards, including both administrative and judicial appeals; and (c) has forfeited many rights and privileges, including those delineated above.
To summarize, individuals who are convicted of serious crimes (felonies) may be released from incarceration, but their "debt to society" is never fully expunged.
RWK, well answered. Thanks for the information regarding DD's.
I really did not mean to start a debate on the rights of convicted felons but am interested in the fact that there are several different points of view well articulated above.
Personally, I think that a first timer convicted of a violent felony (possibly a mistake or injustice or simply a "man's gotta do" sort of thing) should be restored to full rights when the entire sentence is served, i.e. not when paroled. Second conviction and there may be reason to have as part of the sentence restriction of rights. Third time and a court finding of "habitual criminality" and he rots in jail for life. I do not think rights should be lost for misdemeanors and I notice that many current "felonies" are so classified to "send a [politically correct] message". Right now I do believe that we need to work to restore the rights of the law abiding. Public advocacy of self-defense rights for felons just plays into the hands of those who want the "extremist" label to stick. We can raise these issues later.
To get back to the main topic, the question has been asked, "What does reasonable mean?" In the past, I have been assaulted by antis shouting, "You won't even agree to *reasonable* restrictions on guns!" My answer is, "First let's define reasonable, then let's cut off a 'reasonable' portion of your favorite body part. Then let's talk about guns." Can't say it helped a lot, but it is where I stand.
Bentley
“…words, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of every American.
… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
-Trenche Coxe in “Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 Feb 1778
I really did not mean to start a debate on the rights of convicted felons but am interested in the fact that there are several different points of view well articulated above.
Personally, I think that a first timer convicted of a violent felony (possibly a mistake or injustice or simply a "man's gotta do" sort of thing) should be restored to full rights when the entire sentence is served, i.e. not when paroled. Second conviction and there may be reason to have as part of the sentence restriction of rights. Third time and a court finding of "habitual criminality" and he rots in jail for life. I do not think rights should be lost for misdemeanors and I notice that many current "felonies" are so classified to "send a [politically correct] message". Right now I do believe that we need to work to restore the rights of the law abiding. Public advocacy of self-defense rights for felons just plays into the hands of those who want the "extremist" label to stick. We can raise these issues later.
To get back to the main topic, the question has been asked, "What does reasonable mean?" In the past, I have been assaulted by antis shouting, "You won't even agree to *reasonable* restrictions on guns!" My answer is, "First let's define reasonable, then let's cut off a 'reasonable' portion of your favorite body part. Then let's talk about guns." Can't say it helped a lot, but it is where I stand.
Bentley
“…
… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
-Trenche Coxe in “Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 Feb 1778
Never have understood why convicted felons must pay for their crimes their whole lives??? Once you are released from prison, you should get all your rights back. If people feel that the released felon wont use those rights in a responsible manner then why let them out to begin with??? The concept of someone MIGHT in the future misuse their rights is called prior restraint and unconstitutional I believe.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAZ:
Never have understood why convicted felons must pay for their crimes their whole lives??? Once you are released from prison, you should get all your rights back. If people feel that the released felon wont use those rights in a responsible manner then why let them out to begin with??? The concept of someone MIGHT in the future misuse their rights is called prior restraint and unconstitutional I believe. [/quote]
The original idea was that a felony crime (under English common law) is so heinous that it warrants execution. Society has since become more civilized and has opted to execute a person's citizenship rather than the actual person... of course, felonies were much more limited and people didn't get their citizenship removed over not raking their lawn (exaggeration) also.
However, considering the recidivist tendencies of many criminals who are released back into society today, I would say the concept of removing their RKBA and making them petition to get it back is a good one.
Now as to gun laws - I think that "One gun a month" law is an awful good one; but I would like to see some federal subsidies to help me continue to buy quality firearms at that rate. This isn't an easy law to comply with on a budget.
Never have understood why convicted felons must pay for their crimes their whole lives??? Once you are released from prison, you should get all your rights back. If people feel that the released felon wont use those rights in a responsible manner then why let them out to begin with??? The concept of someone MIGHT in the future misuse their rights is called prior restraint and unconstitutional I believe. [/quote]
The original idea was that a felony crime (under English common law) is so heinous that it warrants execution. Society has since become more civilized and has opted to execute a person's citizenship rather than the actual person... of course, felonies were much more limited and people didn't get their citizenship removed over not raking their lawn (exaggeration) also.
However, considering the recidivist tendencies of many criminals who are released back into society today, I would say the concept of removing their RKBA and making them petition to get it back is a good one.
Now as to gun laws - I think that "One gun a month" law is an awful good one; but I would like to see some federal subsidies to help me continue to buy quality firearms at that rate. This isn't an easy law to comply with on a budget.
Brett, serial #'s are the only way to prove that an unmodified firearm is yours if it is stolen or seized and later returned. Some mid-grade watches (Rolex) and high-grade watches (Breguet) have serial numbers for the same reason. It is also a way to determine originality of parts all belonging to the same firearm, hence notations on many Lugers and Broomhandles for 'matching numbers'. Higher grade guns had serial numbers for many years before the feds required them. Even Colt SAA #001 sold at an auction about 10-15 years ago. One of the things that made it valuable was that it was the first commercially produced SAA.
I find it strangely amusing that people in this forum, of all places, think that laws prohibiting felons from carrying guns actually prevents them from carrying guns if they want to. Especially if they want to continue being criminals.
The solution to violent criminality is maximizing the number of armed civilians.
--The Beez
The solution to violent criminality is maximizing the number of armed civilians.
--The Beez
Randy Davis
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICBentley:
... can there be such a thing? (Other than the 2nd A)
If so, What? Why?
Bentley[/quote]
Reasonable gun control law?
Sure there is.
The "People", armed to the teeth. The Revenuers (BATF) defanged!
Now thats what I call a reasonable gun control law.
Remember this equation, People:
Registration = Confiscation, _Always_.
We will NOT comply.
Not now. Not ever!
RKBA Forever!!!!
... can there be such a thing? (Other than the 2nd A)
If so, What? Why?
Bentley[/quote]
Reasonable gun control law?
Sure there is.
The "People", armed to the teeth. The Revenuers (BATF) defanged!
Now thats what I call a reasonable gun control law.
Remember this equation, People:
Registration = Confiscation, _Always_.
We will NOT comply.
Not now. Not ever!
RKBA Forever!!!!
Randy Davis
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevinw:
One point I want to make. When you are convicted of a Felony you Lose all your rights. Therefor you no longer have the Right to Bear arms. Or any other Right for that matter. And I don't care how long your ass spends in Jail. You still committed a crime. Live with it. [/quote]
Wow, what a defender of freedom you are, Kevin.....Not!
So, according to your twisted logic, a non-violent drug user, sentenced as a felon, should not ever be able to defend him/herself, nor his/her spouse and children with a gun, after they have served thier time in full?
Cripes sakes, with thinking like that, no wonder this county is in such a mess !!
BTW, before you flame me (take your best shot, brother), I am not a user of illegal drugs, nor have I ever been been.
Do try and defend your position, without resorting to flames, if you can, Kevin.
One point I want to make. When you are convicted of a Felony you Lose all your rights. Therefor you no longer have the Right to Bear arms. Or any other Right for that matter. And I don't care how long your ass spends in Jail. You still committed a crime. Live with it. [/quote]
Wow, what a defender of freedom you are, Kevin.....Not!
So, according to your twisted logic, a non-violent drug user, sentenced as a felon, should not ever be able to defend him/herself, nor his/her spouse and children with a gun, after they have served thier time in full?
Cripes sakes, with thinking like that, no wonder this county is in such a mess !!
BTW, before you flame me (take your best shot, brother), I am not a user of illegal drugs, nor have I ever been been.
Do try and defend your position, without resorting to flames, if you can, Kevin.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Beez:
The solution to violent criminality is maximizing the number of armed civilians.
--The Beez[/quote]
No sir; I respectfully disagree. The solution to violent criminality is to maximize the number of RESPONSIBLE armed citizen. This, in general, excludes felons.
The solution to violent criminality is maximizing the number of armed civilians.
--The Beez[/quote]
No sir; I respectfully disagree. The solution to violent criminality is to maximize the number of RESPONSIBLE armed citizen. This, in general, excludes felons.
- Status