The Perception of Gun Owners

[5whiskey]

I'd think the simple answer is there were no real ways to stop them legally with the laws in place at the time .

Ah, but that is not the case with several instances. Several individuals were prohibited persons when they purchased the weapon to commit their heinous acts. The VA Tech Shooter was prohibited as he was adjudicated mentally ill, but the State of VA didn't report it. The Sutherland Springs shooter should have been prohibited because he beat the brakes off of his ex-wife (whose church family/friends were the target of that shooting), but the Air Force failed to report him. The Aurora IL shooter was a prohibited person but obtained a FOID card in IL, later purchasing a firearm. There were laws in place stating these individuals could not possess firearms. They could have been tried and convicted for fraud on the 4473, along with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. BUT, the imperfect NICS background check let them slip through, in most cases because the agency responsible for reporting their previous criminal convictions/mental adjudications failed to do so.

Red Flag laws may would have successfully intervened in the Aurora CO shooting, if someone would've reported him. The same with the Parkland FL shooter, though he should have been a convicted felon about 10 times over. In addition, in Parkland FL, the Baker act could have covered him apparently so there was already a law in place to authorize removing his firearms (despite the fact he should've been a convicted felon before the shooting, or at a minimum convicted of domestic violence). There are many other examples where red flag laws may have helped, or they were a moot point. If we must pass a law to "do something," why not start by passing a law saying it's a crime to fail to submit or enter any criminal conviction or mental adjudication information to NICS? That's too easy, could actually hold people accountable for negligence in their duty, could possibly motivate individuals to do their duty diligently (every time), and could possibly save lives. And it hurts zero law abiding gun owners, and doesn't stifle the spirit of the 2A.

 

[5whiskey]

Red Flag Law Continued

Further, on Red Flag Laws, I ponder this...

Would it pass constitutional muster to permanently restrict someone's constitutional right (in this case, their 2A right) using any legal standard other than proof beyond a reasonable doubt? What standard of proof does most red flag laws require to have someone's 2A right's restricted? Is any other right, say their right to vote, restricted? In the case of an adjudicated mental deficiency, I would say that if they are so "dangerous" in their mental condition that they shouldn't own a firearm, it's also an easy call to say that they probably shouldn't help choose the president. Or be allowed to post on blogs or forums (1st amendment rights).

But wait, someone will say "well words or voting doesn't kill." And I will counter that Hitler was voted into office, and his words killed 10s of millions. It actually makes the smattering of mass shootings we've had pale in comparison. Some things to think about to everyone jumping on the "red flag law" bandwagon. This isn't an automatic "they're definitely bad in all cases," but if they are made law then the details of that law will matter a great deal as to whether they are just and appropriate laws... or grossly unconstitutional.

 

[Ignition Override]

A few years ago Joe Biden stated that all you need for self-defense is a shotgun. He said nothing about handguns or rifles.

Caving in to their demands of stopping production of, and making future possession of semi-auto rifles being illegal, would not imply that other gun types would still be legal.

In other words, for example you might not want or need a Mini 14, AR-15, SKS, or AK clone etc.
But, by selling out people who like these guns, it doesn't mean that you would still be allowed to own a hunting rifle (holding > 1 round) or be able to carry a handgun.

One blunt question: when American citizens allow any new gun restriction or law, what do they receive in return?
It's always appeasement...but what is the trade off? Are you willing one day to be a subject who does a sissy "curtsy" to govt. bureaucrats and politicians, or a citizen, more like the Swiss example?

 

[rickyrick]

Freedom was, and maybe still is, the heart of our country. Like any heart freedom works in beats. We find ourselves existing in the time between beats. Will freedom beat again or was the previous beat the last?
Our nation is old, the heart of freedom has survived beyond maturity. There are those among us that want to keep our freedom alive and there are those who wish to euthanize it and start anew.
Gun owners seem to be on the side of freedom but yet they sit idly by and allow the chips to stay as they fell.
Gun owners sit back and allow freedom to be extinguished all around:
“No one needs an AR to hunt” they say.
Chicago falls, they do nothing.
New York falls, they do nothing.
California, Oregon and Washington loose their freedoms and they still sit behind the borders of temporary “red” states not caring because it’s not them.
A person 800 miles away is imprisoned by an unconstitutional law and they sit on their hands.

The opposition will fight for their causes across many state lines. They march for what they believe in all around the country, not just in the living room.
The opposition will put money into their agenda and sacrifice profits for what they believe is right.

We can’t count on the NRA, GOA and these other organizations to secure our freedom, we’ve got to do it ourselves... just like the other side does.

The other side built up their machine, they created the social media tech giants. They have the power to win, because they built it.
We have thoughts and prayers, the NRA and an antiquated document that has lost its true intent.
There’s more gun owners (I assume) than people that vote. Go vote, stop this madness!

 

[USNRet93]

Isn't the law that says a convicted felon cannot own a firearm a form of 'red flag laws'? I mean, the issue with RFL is lack of due process, 'assuming' that the person 'may' commit mayhem in the future..Isn't that the same with a convicted felon? Even if they paid their debt to society?

 

[zukiphile]

Isn't the law that says a convicted felon cannot own a firearm a form of 'red flag laws'? I mean, the issue with RFL is lack of due process, 'assuming' that the person 'may' commit mayhem in the future..Isn't that the same with a convicted felon? Even if they paid their debt to society?

In some states, a felon who has served his sentence can vote, but in other states one can lose that right as a consequence of conviction.

The theory behind the felony conviction is akin to a legal death, the punishment for so many felonies being actual death. The loss of rights is part of the punishment. One can question the justice of the punishment, but it is the product of rules that provide a defendant a full array of rights after which a judge or jury find that the state proved a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

RFLs don't have those safeguards upfront, but appear triggered by barely more than an accusation. Maybe the closest thing we have in conventional criminal law is pre-trial detention.

If you wrote a RFL with a hearing to be sure that the complaint was enough to hold someone and required the accuser to prove a complaint that the target had actually done something beyond a reasonable doubt before stripping the accused of his rights, you'd have more safeguards and it would just be an ordinary criminal case.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .I mean, the issue with RFL is lack of due process, . . . .

I would say that the lack of Due Process is one problem with RFLs.

That said, what say we try to steer this one back to its topic, which is 'the Perception of Gun Owners?"

 

[44 AMP]

Gun owners seem to be on the side of freedom but yet they sit idly by and allow the chips to stay as they fell.
Gun owners sit back and allow freedom to be extinguished all around:
“No one needs an AR to hunt” they say.
Chicago falls, they do nothing.
New York falls, they do nothing.
California, Oregon and Washington loose their freedoms and they still sit behind the borders of temporary “red” states not caring because it’s not them.

Don't confuse trying and failing with not trying. And don't accuse us all of doing nothing when democracy, as we practice it, out votes us.

Simply put, when the numerical bulk of the population, who have no awareness of any direct personal stake in the issue (any issue), are mis-informed, or sometimes willfully supplied with dis-information, in order that they vote a certain way, there's not much the minority can do.

This is the downside to democracy. And the primary reason our Founders set up a democratic REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

All of us who live in states where there is a large concentrations of voters in small geographical areas and more thinly spread in the rest of the state are at risk of "democratic tyranny" and especially so when an issue is voted on via referendum.

Isn't the law that says a convicted felon cannot own a firearm a form of 'red flag laws'? I mean, the issue with RFL is lack of due process, 'assuming' that the person 'may' commit mayhem in the future..Isn't that the same with a convicted felon? Even if they paid their debt to society?

No. It is not a form of Red Flag law. A person becomes a convicted felon (and prohibited person) by going through all the "due process". A trial, and all that goes with it. They become a felon as a RESULT of due process.

This is quite different from "Red Flag" laws, which, supposedly, are temporary measures for "public safety".

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Gun owners seem to be on the side of freedom but yet they sit idly by and allow the chips to stay as they fell.
Gun owners sit back and allow freedom to be extinguished all around:
“No one needs an AR to hunt” they say.
Chicago falls, they do nothing.
New York falls, they do nothing.
California, Oregon and Washington loose their freedoms and they still sit behind the borders of temporary “red” states not caring because it’s not them.

Don't confuse trying and failing with not trying. And don't accuse us all of doing nothing when democracy, as we practice it, out votes us.

It's not all of us, but it is too many of us. They're out there -- the Fudds, the gun owners who don't care about bump stocks, "assault weapons," suppressors, magazine limits, semi-automatic handguns, or any or a number of other "minor" (or not so minor) 2A infringements as long as their trusty bolt action hunting rifles aren't affected.

I saw it in action just a few years ago. I became aware of a particularly onerous local ordinance in my home town, and I resolved to fight it. I live in a town with a population of just over 10,000 people. I have verified with the state police that there are more than 450 carry permit holders in my town. I went to the local gun club, spoke to the officers, and posted a notice on their bulletin board about an upcoming meeting of the equivalent of the board of aldermen (it's called something else in my town, a term that most readers would not recognize) with discussion of this ordinance on the agenda.

Exactly ONE person showed up to support me -- and he just sat there, he didn't address the powers that be.

Anyone who thinks that "gun owners" are a unified bloc of voters is delusional.

 

[Spats McGee]

One problem of which I've become aware is that each gun owner has to make a decision at the outset: Do I speak up and make it known that I own guns? Or do I lie low, thinking that maybe I'll bury them in the back 40 if they're outlawed? (Yes, I know that would leave one with guns that he or she could never take out.)

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Our nation has a hell of a problem. One component of that problem is firearms. Gun people resisting any opportunity to participate in productive coalitions to curb this problem does paint gun owners as self serving ludites.

Gun owners aren’t resisting an opportunity to participate in productive coalitions. We’d love to participate, the problem is when we point out the Maoist-solution-du-joir doesn’t solve the problem and burdens people who aren’t causing the problem, we’re ignored.

Look at the way you phrased that... could you have been more biased and offensive if you tried? Little wonder you don’t feel welcome here if that accurately reflects your view.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Isn't the law that says a convicted felon cannot own a firearm a form of 'red flag laws'? I mean, the issue with RFL is lack of due process, 'assuming' that the person 'may' commit mayhem in the future..Isn't that the same with a convicted felon?

No, it isn’t. A convicted felon has received due process - he’s been convicted of a crime in front of a jury of his peers or waived that right at his own choice. Under many state red flag laws, I can make a spurious allegation and you will be disarmed until you can prove a negative. That’s a feature of the Napoleonic code of justice and has about as much in common with justice as Napoleon did.

The original idea was that a felony was a serious crime that deserved death and that by only executing your citizenship, the state was showing clemency. Of course now that you can become a felon for common paperwork mistakes, that analogy no longer holds up as well. But the felon, now and then, gets a chance to contest the charges in front of a jury and must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - I can’t think of a single red flag law that offers even one of those to the people it affects.

 

[Tom Servo]

Exactly ONE person showed up to support me -- and he just sat there, he didn't address the powers that be.

That echoes my experience. Take the 1994 bills. Before they were signed, it was "Bill Clinton isn't coming for my rifle. He said so. And stop interrupting my dinner." Afterwards, it was, "whaddaya mean I can only get 10-round mags for my Glock? Why didn't somebody do something about this?"

I've had the same experience time and again on the state level. Everybody's puffed up on "my cold dead hands" rhetoric, but nobody has the time to show up for a hearing. I can't even get them to write their politicians.

Jeff Knox did a survey of NRA members a few years ago. He found that they didn't vote with any more frequency than the general population, and that only 6% could even name one of their legislators.

 

[TailGator]

Simply put, when the numerical bulk of the population, who have no awareness of any direct personal stake in the issue (any issue), are mis-informed, or sometimes willfully supplied with dis-information, in order that they vote a certain way, there's not much the minority can do.

This is the downside to democracy. And the primary reason our Founders set up a democratic REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

It is also the reason that the most basic rights of individuals were added to our Constitution, so that a majority could not oppress a minority. People need to think about the real meaning of the word "constitution" - it is not just a piece of paper, but the basic principles upon which a body, in this case a nation, is constituted. The Bill of Rights was very expressly created to avoid the very situation that gun owners now face - the attempt to remove the rights of individuals, even if a minority, by creating oppressive laws, even if favored by a majority.

 

[Metal god]

It is also the reason that the most basic rights of individuals were added to our Constitution, so that a majority could not oppress a minority. People need to think about the real meaning of the word "constitution" - it is not just a piece of paper, but the basic principles upon which a body, in this case a nation, is constituted. The Bill of Rights was very expressly created to avoid the very situation that gun owners now face - the attempt to remove the rights of individuals, even if a minority, by creating oppressive laws, even

That ^^^, and that’s what the courts are for . To rule based on the law which “should” be supported by the constitution. Many times if not most times that’s what happens. However it seems we are getting closer and closer to second class rights where some are more important then others . That makes it hard to not be betrayed as second class citizens when we’re supporters of these perceived second class rights .

The media not really reporting on each right with the same gusto as others is not helping use shake the stigma we find our selves in as second amendment supporters , especially after one of these mass shootings.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That echoes my experience. Take the 1994 bills. Before they were signed, it was "Bill Clinton isn't coming for my rifle. He said so. And stop interrupting my dinner." Afterwards, it was, "whaddaya mean I can only get 10-round mags for my Glock? Why didn't somebody do something about this?"

I think that's the crux of the issue: too many gun owners think the NRA or the SAF or GOA or ___ will "take care of it," so they don't have to do anything or think about it. They just sit back and wait for somebody to do something ... and when nobody does anything (or whatever somebody does isn't enough), they act surprised and hurt.

Sometimes we have to become the somebody. In my case, with my town's ordinance, I made myself the somebody. I wasn't able to get the ordinance repealed, but I was eventually able to get it revised enough to correct some of the most draconian (and idiotic) provisions. It didn't happen overnight. It cost me $15,000 out of my own pocket for legal fees (I engaged an attorney who specializes in firearms law), and the NRA kicked in another $10,000 or so from a grant fund they maintain for helping out in such situations. It took two years and the threat of a lawsuit in federal court before the town finally moved on it.

I had no help from any of the shooters in town. But ... I'm a member of my state's pro-carry grass roots organization, and five members from that organization made the trek from other corners of the state the evening we had a meeting with the Ordinance Committee from the town government. Three of those five were women, and I'm fairly certain that made a difference, although I don't know how much.

That state grass roots organization has (on paper) several thousand members. Every year, we struggle to get people to go to the legislative hearings to testify regarding proposed gun laws. Out of several thousand members, we're lucky to get 100 people to even write a letter in opposition. The group even provides the language, and the e-mail addresses -- all they have to do is copy the letter, paste it into and e-mail, fill in the address, and hit SEND. Thousands of "pro-gun" people are too lazy to do even that.

We can make a difference. We can affect laws. But doing so requires taking positive, concrete action, not just sitting behind a keyboard and pontificating.

 

[USNRet93]

No. It is not a form of Red Flag law. A person becomes a convicted felon (and prohibited person) by going through all the "due process". A trial, and all that goes with it. They become a felon as a RESULT of due process.

This is quite different from "Red Flag" laws, which, supposedly, are temporary measures for "public safety".

Not a lawyer but it 'seems' that a convicted felon, even if it was something pretty minor a long time ago, is assumed to be a threat in the future, because of his past..just like somebody who is subject to a RFL, and is assumed to be 'potentially' harmful in the future so that they lose their guns. I understand the due process that results in a felony conviction...

 

[zukiphile]

Not a lawyer but it 'seems' that a convicted felon, even if it was something pretty minor a long time ago, is assumed to be a threat in the future, because of his past...

Not at all. Modern felonies include federal income tax transgressions, like being the bookkeeper who signs bad checks for federal withholding or lying about your own income on a return, or brokers who misrepresent the activity in an investment portfolio. I know a couple of contractors who spent a year or two in federal lock up for paying bribes to get contracts in which government was a party.

Sometimes people are felons because they are stupid or greedy, not because they are dangerous.

 

[Tom Servo]

too many gun owners think the NRA or the SAF or GOA or ___ will "take care of it," so they don't have to do anything or think about it.

Yep, and the irony is that most of these people don't even support or belong to the organizations you mentioned, but they'll jump to condemn them if things go wrong.

Heck, GOA has pretty much made a cottage industry out of nipping at the NRA's heels.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Not a lawyer but it 'seems' that a convicted felon, even if it was something pretty minor a long time ago, is assumed to be a threat in the future, because of his past...

Not at all. Modern felonies include federal income tax transgressions, like being the bookkeeper who signs bad checks for federal withholding or lying about your own income on a return, or brokers who misrepresent the activity in an investment portfolio. I know a couple of contractors who spent a year or two in federal lock up for paying bribes to get contracts in which government was a party.

Sometimes people are felons because they are stupid or greedy, not because they are dangerous.

True, but IMHO this doesn't answer USNRet93's question. He appears to understand that people convicted of non-violent felonies are forever barred from possessing firearms; his question is "Why?" The fact that they are is not an answer.

It wasn't always that way. I went through junior high school in the 1950s. Even then, we were still being taught in Social Studies class that criminals who had served their sentences and were released had "paid their debt to society." The implication was that the prison sentence (including any probation period) was the punishment. Being deprived of a fundamental Constitutional right even after the completion of a prison sentence (and probation) is a prolonged punishment.

(As an aside, I haven't heard anyone suggest that a felon who has been released from prison and has completed his parole has "paid his debt to society" in a very, VERY long time.)

It wasn't always that way. So I think USNRet93's question is valid. Why do we now make people convicted of non-violent, white-collar type crimes prohibited persons for life? Is it because we think they are potentially dangerous, or is it because we want to prolong their punishment?