[quote]jsbrook wrote:
So, let’s try this instead…forget about licensing and registration. What, if any, regulations do you guys think are acceptable?[/quote]
Almost none. I don’t even believe that having a history of mental illness should be justification alone to prevent you from owning a gun.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sifu wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sifu wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Marches by the ku klux clan are protected. What you can’t do is use speech to purposely incite violence. You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater (one of the classic examples). You can’t engage in blatantly false advertising. Just a few examples. I hardly thik that licensing and registering firearms is particularly burdensome or unduly infringes on the right to bear arms.
Liscensing is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. When the people have to have all their firearms registered with the government it becomes very easy for the the authorities to show up at your front door one day with a list of what you have and demand you turn them over.
When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they still had the memory of the pre-revolutionary period to draw upon. They deliberately did not want the government to be able to easily control the people. They had just fought many years of a bloody war to put an end to the tyranny of an over-controlling government.
The government having a detailed list of the arms that are held by the people would be a serious threat to civil liberty, that the founding fathers never would have supported.
It’s an entirely different world today. One the founding fathers couldn’t even imagine. I agree that it would be completely unjust for the government to come and seize all your guns. But that’s hardly the logical consequence of licensing and registration. The prohibition against any such action would still be absolute. The government is entirely capable of illegally searching a house right now and seizing any weapons that they find. But they’d be breaking the law. Just like coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would against the law.
Really? It’s a different world today?!?! That is so ignorant. How is the world different? Has the human genome changed in two hundred years? NO! Has human nature changed in any way in the last two hundred years? NO!
With the exception of some technology, the world toady is no different from the one the founding fathers lived in. There is still greed, averace, predjudice, tyranny, hatred and ignorance. It is super ignorant to think that our nature has been changed by our inventions. There is nothing new under the sun. Especially when it comes to the course of human events. We have thousands of years to look back upon and see a very consistant pattern.
The government showing up to search your for the unknown would not be anywhere as productive as it would if they showed up with a comprehensive list of what you have. Searches are highly labor intensive take a lot of time and still may not yeild anything. Registration would be a great expedient to disarming the people because all the authorities would have to do is show up and demand what is on the list then move on to the next house. Then once they have all the registered arms they can come back and do searches.
Come on DUDE. There are millions of instances where we don’t follow the exact intent of the founder fathers. The founding father ALWAYS balanced absolute liberty against restrictions needed to keep this country safe and running. Sometimes rightly. Sometimes wrongly (Alien & Sedition acts anyone?). [/quote]
Yes we have gotten away from the exact intent of the founding fathers in a number of instances. But when we have often times it has resulted in major fuck ups. Like Prohibition, or the war on drugs. Our rights against unreasonable search and seizure suffered a major degredation as a result of drug prohibition. Besides most of Americas crime rate is caused by the war on drugs policy of interdiction.
[quote]
What’s necessary today is not always the same as what was necessary a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, irrespective of changes in human nature. [/quote]
Human nature has not changed. Watch the TV series Rome sometime.
[quote]
And the fact that something makes it EASIER for the government to misbehave doesn’t mean it should be be prohibited if there are valid and important reasons for it. MANY laws make it easier for the government to misbehave but they exist and rightly so because they serve important or compelling purposes. [/quote]
But the right to keep and bear arms is the one right that sets the most finite limit upon how much the government can misbehave. No other right gives the people the power to seize control of their government when it militantly refuses to bend to the peoples will. It is of unique importance. Especially when all the other rights are being severely eroded.
The second amendment is the reset button that we can push to reset our rights to their original “free state”.
[quote]
I’m not saying that all of the regulation schemes for guns are appropriate or should be upheld. But the general principle that you have the right to own and use a gun in whatever manner you wish without any restrictions whatsoever irrepective of any societal consquences is patently ridiculous. [/quote]
Spare us your histrionics because that is not the case.
[quote]
And it departs from the way this country has operated since its infancy. And such a stance would elevate the right to bear arms above every single right we recognize, fundamental or otherwise. [/quote]
Back in America’s infancy people understood perfectly well what it was like to live under government tyranny. People understood that they gained their rights through the force of arms. We have our fundamental rights because people fought and died for them. Without guns the founding fathers never would have been able to wrestle their freedom away from the British. The second amendment is the foundation upon which all our rights have been built.
[quote]
Constitutionally-guaranteed or not. This includes rights of free speech, right to exercise freedom of relgion, and freedom of relgion. All rights that are HIGHLY but not absolutely protected. And that give way for other fundamental interests. The Right to Bear Arms is not and should not be any different.[/quote]
In Hitlers Germany they had freedom of speech. The same thing in Stalins Soviet Union. People in both countries could say whatever they wanted to. Now for some reason not many did, but they had freedom of speech too.
The second amendment is just like freedom of speech. While there may be a few types of limitation that make sense, all efforts by the government to limit and monitor the excercise of those rights should be viewed with the highest level of suspicion.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…I agree that it would be completely unjust for the government to come and seize all your guns. But that’s hardly the logical consequence of licensing and registration.
But licensing and registration is the most likely precursor to government coming and seizing all your guns. Agreed?
The prohibition against any such action would still be absolute. The government is entirely capable of illegally searching a house right now and seizing any weapons that they find. But they’d be breaking the law. Just like coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would against the law.
And the government NEVER breaks the law, does it? It is omnipotent and omniscient and omni-benevolent, right? It (a government that would do the above) is not something to be feared, right? Governments have no history of such reprehensible actions, right?
So if “coming to your house and seizing duly registered guns would be against the law” why bother registering them? Why build a registry? What’s the purpose? Tell me.
To make sure that all guns are in the hands of registered users and not criminals. And make unregistered guns easier to find and unlicensed users easier to prosecute.
In order to do what you just suggested then government would have to institute massive unwarranted searches. You just suggested a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Whoops.
But what the hay, right? The Fourth, the Second, the Tenth…they’re all evolving, eh? “These are different times”, eh?
JS, you know I like ya, bud, but you are digging yourself a hole you can’t climb out of. Stop now while somebody can still throw you a rope and hoist ya out.[/quote]
It’s not a hole. Rights do NOT evolve. Circumstances do. Constitutional rights have NEVER been absolute. They won’t be. And they shouldn’t be. They are HIGHLY protected an can only yield when the results would otherwise be disastrous and dangerous. Constiutional rights have only been infringed upon or limited to achieve extremely compelling government interest when the regulation is the ONLY way to achieve it. And that has ALWAYS been the standard. What can change as the world changes is what is an extremely compelling interest and how it can be satisfied. The same high standard remains. Fundamental rights can only be limited to serve extremely be limited to serve extremely compelling interests and only by the least intrusive and invasive means. Now, I don’t support the Patriot Act because I think it’s bullshit and an unjustified invasion that’s not supported by necessity. But things like speech have never been absolute. Child pornography and obscenity can be regulated or banned. They are both ‘speech.’ Obscenity is legal but not in schools and not over the public air waves (meaning radio and non-cable tv). You could say that unfairly infringes upon speech. But the founding fathers could have never imagined television, much less a 5 yr old turning television on at 9 in the morning and beeing greeted with an orgy or some woman getting peed on. That’s all free speech. You think the founding fathers wouldn’t have regulated that if mass television existed in their day? Gimme a break.
JS you still have not explained how things have changed. Then you bring up the Patriot act. Get a clue things may be changing, but not for the better. In this era of ever greater powers ofgovernment surveilance and control the right to keep and bear arms is needed more than ever.
The United States has muddled along perfectly well for over two hundred years without the government keeping a comprehensive database of firearm ownership.
There may be an interest in keeping porn off of public tv, just like there may be an interest in keeping firearms out of bars where people are getting drunk and stupid. However there should never be a compelling interest for the government to keep a comprehensive database of everything we say or write, from the cradle to the grave. It would be a very ominous development if the government were to make such a demand into law.
The same thing applies to firearm ownership. It would be a very ominous development for the government to demand and keep an extensive database of firearm ownership along with a database detailing activities relating to firearms use. ie gunclub membership or militia membership.
The founding fathers intended for us to have privacy from the government for a reason. They had spent many years suffering from gross intrusions into their privacy by the British government. Intrusions that had gone so far as to see the stationing of soldiers in private homes.
Your problem is that since you have never had to suffer from that kind of government intrusion you can’t see the harm that it can cause. You are one of those people who can’t see a problem until you are in it up past your eyeballs.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
So, let’s try this instead…forget about licensing and registration. What, if any, regulations do you guys think are acceptable?[/quote]
Next to none. I think the NICS check is a decent idea as long as the system is administered properly. There are a lot of people barred from legally buying firearms that shouldn’t be. For example, anyone with a dishonorable discharge from the military is SOL. You know what you could get a dishonorable discharge for decades ago? Being gay.
The ATF used to have a program where convicted felons could apply to have their right to purchase firearms restored. I think it has been abandoned. Remember, if you shoplift a couple of DVD’s from Walmart, that could get you a felony conviction in some states. Now, obviously, I have no patience for thieves but I also recognize that someone who does that at 18 and spends the next 20 years working hard, staying honest and raising a family should have a chance to protect said family properly. If the NICS criteria was tightened, I think it is a good idea.
Other than that, all the other shit should be dropped, including all of the prohibitions against machine guns.
Registration serves no purpose other than as a precursor to confiscation. How would it make the public “safer”? I have never heard a decent answer to that question.
The hoops you have to jump through in certain states are extreme. New Jersey requires a separate permit for every handgun, which is a royal pain in the ass and discourages a certain amount of commerce. Also, carry permits are “may issue”. That means unless you work for the government in some armed capacity, there is only one way to get a gun…pay off a police chief. Thats who arbitrarily decides if you get a carry permit as a private citizen. From personal experience, I can tell you that only a few very connected, very wealthy people are ever granted this privilege. Same thing in New York city.
Now, honestly tell me that is American.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
So, let’s try this instead…forget about licensing and registration. What, if any, regulations do you guys think are acceptable?[/quote]
I forgot one “regulation”…
Enforce the damned rape, kidnapping, agg. assault, burglary, homicide etc. laws to the utmost and keep these guys in jail forever(or kill them, if it warrants). Toss the gang members and terrorist-sympathizers in there for RICO violations and lock away the low-level repeat offenders for a long time too.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
JS you still have not explained how things have changed. Then you bring up the Patriot act. Get a clue things may be changing, but not for the better. In this era of ever greater powers ofgovernment surveilance and control the right to keep and bear arms is needed more than ever.
The United States has muddled along perfectly well for over two hundred years without the government keeping a comprehensive database of firearm ownership.
There may be an interest in keeping porn off of public tv, just like there may be an interest in keeping firearms out of bars where people are getting drunk and stupid. However there should never be a compelling interest for the government to keep a comprehensive database of everything we say or write, from the cradle to the grave. It would be a very ominous development if the government were to make such a demand into law.
The same thing applies to firearm ownership. It would be a very ominous development for the government to demand and keep an extensive database of firearm ownership along with a database detailing activities relating to firearms use. ie gunclub membership or militia membership.
The founding fathers intended for us to have privacy from the government for a reason. They had spent many years suffering from gross intrusions into their privacy by the British government. Intrusions that had gone so far as to see the stationing of soldiers in private homes.
Your problem is that since you have never had to suffer from that kind of government intrusion you can’t see the harm that it can cause. You are one of those people who can’t see a problem until you are in it up past your eyeballs.
[/quote]
Oh, really? What government intrusion have YOU suffered? I fully see the harm it can cause. And that’s why any regulation that limits a funadmental right has to be extremely circumscribed and necessary to serve an exgtremely compelling interest. This is not an easy test to satisfy. Not by any means. The common quip is, ‘Strict in theory. Fatal in fact.’ Almost no regulations limiting fundamental rights are upheld. But the ones that are damn well should be.
I alluded to how the world has changed in a previous post. Television is only one of many ways. I think I mispoke in that post. Obscene speech is illegal and has a very narrow and discrete defintion. But profane speech that falls short of legal obscenity IS legal. Just not over the public airwaves. This is a just a modern response to changed circumstances maintainign what has always. Lewd conduct is speech. It’s certainly allowed to exist but is regulated. Always has been. The difference now is that there is the capacity to broadcast pornography over the public airwaves for every 5 year old child to view. So, it’s regulated. The fundamental right to make pornos is not infringed on. The lewd conduct is limited just like it has always been. The limitation in the modern world is preventing it from being broadcast on non-cable television.
For the record, I’m not saying that licensing and registration should necessarily be upheld. I’m saying that the right to bear arms is not absolute and SOME regulation is appropriate.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
So, let’s try this instead…forget about licensing and registration. What, if any, regulations do you guys think are acceptable?
Next to none. I think the NICS check is a decent idea as long as the system is administered properly. There are a lot of people barred from legally buying firearms that shouldn’t be. For example, anyone with a dishonorable discharge from the military is SOL. You know what you could get a dishonorable discharge for decades ago? Being gay.
The ATF used to have a program where convicted felons could apply to have their right to purchase firearms restored. I think it has been abandoned. Remember, if you shoplift a couple of DVD’s from Walmart, that could get you a felony conviction in some states. Now, obviously, I have no patience for thieves but I also recognize that someone who does that at 18 and spends the next 20 years working hard, staying honest and raising a family should have a chance to protect said family properly. If the NICS criteria was tightened, I think it is a good idea.
Other than that, all the other shit should be dropped, including all of the prohibitions against machine guns.
Registration serves no purpose other than as a precursor to confiscation. How would it make the public “safer”? I have never heard a decent answer to that question.
The hoops you have to jump through in certain states are extreme. New Jersey requires a separate permit for every handgun, which is a royal pain in the ass and discourages a certain amount of commerce. Also, carry permits are “may issue”. That means unless you work for the government in some armed capacity, there is only one way to get a gun…pay off a police chief. Thats who arbitrarily decides if you get a carry permit as a private citizen. From personal experience, I can tell you that only a few very connected, very wealthy people are ever granted this privilege. Same thing in New York city.
Now, honestly tell me that is American. [/quote]
Carry permits are ‘may issue’? Now that the right to bear arms has been upheld as a fundamental constitutional right, I think that will be challenged and struck. And rightly so. No other area where fundamental rights are involved is allowed to be limited based on individual discretion. These rights can only be limited in very narrowly circumscribed circumstances with NO individual discretion.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
So, let’s try this instead…forget about licensing and registration. What, if any, regulations do you guys think are acceptable?
I forgot one “regulation”…
Enforce the damned rape, kidnapping, agg. assault, burglary, homicide etc. laws to the utmost and keep these guys in jail forever(or kill them, if it warrants). Toss the gang members and terrorist-sympathizers in there for RICO violations and lock away the low-level repeat offenders for a long time too.
[/quote]
a lot of those problems would go away with more CCW and a culture of self-defense, would they not? I mean, men would be less inclined to rape if they knew they had a higher probability of having a .357 hole or two made in them.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
JD430 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
So, let’s try this instead…forget about licensing and registration. What, if any, regulations do you guys think are acceptable?
I forgot one “regulation”…
Enforce the damned rape, kidnapping, agg. assault, burglary, homicide etc. laws to the utmost and keep these guys in jail forever(or kill them, if it warrants). Toss the gang members and terrorist-sympathizers in there for RICO violations and lock away the low-level repeat offenders for a long time too.
a lot of those problems would go away with more CCW and a culture of self-defense, would they not? I mean, men would be less inclined to rape if they knew they had a higher probability of having a .357 hole or two made in them. [/quote]
You know, I almost tend to agree with you. But let’s call a spade a spade. If you’re talking about going after someone who’s ALREADY committed a rape, that’s called justifiable revenge. Not self-defense. As far as actual self-defense goes, it IS permissible to use deadly force to prevent serious crimes like rape. At least it is in New York, and New York is one of the more pacifist jurisdictions. So, I suspect this is also the case most other places. Actually, I know it is. It varies from jursidiction to jurisdiction. But the MAJORITY rule is that it’s permisslbe to use deadly force to prevent ‘dangerous felonies’ involving the risk to human life. In most places, robbery, arson, and burglary of a dwelling make the list. Rape too in a lot of places.
Technically, it’s true that you can use deadly force to prevent a rape. But women can’t use dead force unless they have a gun because most are a lot weaker and less violent than men. That was one of the original points of a derringer - for women to protect themselves. If you’re a women living in a place with strict gun control like Los Angeles, you just have to hope nothing happens I guess.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
But let’s call a spade a spade. If you’re talking about going after someone who’s ALREADY committed a rape, that’s called justifiable revenge. Not self-defense. As far as actual self-defense goes, it IS permissible to use deadly force to prevent serious crimes like rape.
Technically, it’s true that you can use deadly force to prevent a rape. But women can’t use dead force unless they have a gun because most are a lot weaker and less violent than men. That was one of the original points of a derringer - for women to protect themselves. If you’re a women living in a place with strict gun control like Los Angeles, you just have to hope nothing happens I guess. [/quote]
True enough. I think a lot of the gun control laws are going to go by the wayside after this ruling. But some will remain. Like preventing convicted felons from owning and using guns. Though I do agree with the previous post that there should still be some right to repetition after a time and the ability to regain use on a showing that you’re now a law-abiding citizen.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
But let’s call a spade a spade. If you’re talking about going after someone who’s ALREADY committed a rape, that’s called justifiable revenge. Not self-defense. As far as actual self-defense goes, it IS permissible to use deadly force to prevent serious crimes like rape.
Technically, it’s true that you can use deadly force to prevent a rape. But women can’t use dead force unless they have a gun because most are a lot weaker and less violent than men. That was one of the original points of a derringer - for women to protect themselves. If you’re a women living in a place with strict gun control like Los Angeles, you just have to hope nothing happens I guess.
True enough. I think a lot of the gun control laws are going to go by the wayside after this ruling. But some will remain. Like preventing convicted felons from owning and using guns. Though I do agree with the previous post that there should still be some right to repetition after a time and the ability to regain use on a showing that you’re now a law-abiding citizen.[/quote]
I don’t, in principle, have a problem with preventing felons from owning guns through some sort of background check. The problem is, the busybodies in teh various legislatures feel the need to creep that background check into various other things as well, like psychological problems. What if you go to a psychiatrist for a bout of depression? Should you then be barred from owning a gun?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
But let’s call a spade a spade. If you’re talking about going after someone who’s ALREADY committed a rape, that’s called justifiable revenge. Not self-defense. As far as actual self-defense goes, it IS permissible to use deadly force to prevent serious crimes like rape.
Technically, it’s true that you can use deadly force to prevent a rape. But women can’t use dead force unless they have a gun because most are a lot weaker and less violent than men. That was one of the original points of a derringer - for women to protect themselves. If you’re a women living in a place with strict gun control like Los Angeles, you just have to hope nothing happens I guess.
True enough. I think a lot of the gun control laws are going to go by the wayside after this ruling. But some will remain. Like preventing convicted felons from owning and using guns. Though I do agree with the previous post that there should still be some right to repetition after a time and the ability to regain use on a showing that you’re now a law-abiding citizen.
I don’t, in principle, have a problem with preventing felons from owning guns through some sort of background check. The problem is, the busybodies in teh various legislatures feel the need to creep that background check into various other things as well, like psychological problems. What if you go to a psychiatrist for a bout of depression? Should you then be barred from owning a gun?
[/quote]
Well, it’s a tough line to walk. Obviously there is a compelling interest in preventing the mentally incompetent and paranoid schizophrenics from owning guns. A distant cousin of mind is actually petitioning to get his guns back now. He shouldn’t. He was convinced there was a conspiracy of people out to get him. His family had him committed. He’s out now. But you just KNOW the guy is still not right in the head within a few minutes of talking to him. On the other hand, low-grade depression certainly shouldn’t deny someone their right to bear arms.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Well, it’s a tough line to walk. Obviously there is a compelling interest in preventing the mentally incompetent and paranoid schizophrenics from owning guns. A distant cousin of mind is actually petitioning to get his guns back now. He shouldn’t. He was convinced there was a conspiracy of people out to get him. His family had him committed. He’s out now. But you just KNOW the guy is still not right in the head within a few minutes of talking to him. On the other hand, low-grade depression certainly shouldn’t deny someone their right to bear arms.[/quote]
How would the federal government even be able to tell that someone is “mentally incompetent” without access to their medical records?
Who defines “mentally incompetent”, the government?
How do you feel about a simple “competence test” being required before voting?
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Well, it’s a tough line to walk. Obviously there is a compelling interest in preventing the mentally incompetent and paranoid schizophrenics from owning guns. A distant cousin of mind is actually petitioning to get his guns back now. He shouldn’t. He was convinced there was a conspiracy of people out to get him. His family had him committed. He’s out now. But you just KNOW the guy is still not right in the head within a few minutes of talking to him. On the other hand, low-grade depression certainly shouldn’t deny someone their right to bear arms.
How would the federal government even be able to tell that someone is “mentally incompetent” without access to their medical records?
Who defines “mentally incompetent”, the government?
How do you feel about a simple “competence test” being required before voting?[/quote]
No, there is a trial, and a person is adjudged mentally incompetent by a jury or judge. I believe it’s a jury trial but am not sure. So, it’s not a ‘simple competence test’ at all but an extensive process by which a jury of peers or a judge only finds mental incompetence based upon a pretty compelling showing and pretty egregious evidence of lack of capacity. I would not be particularly bothered in respect with voting. Since I prefer that paranoid and delusional schizophrenics who believe people who are out to get them and who may be subject to hallucinations not have access to deadly weapons, I’d be ok with it in this case too. And there is a presumption of competence. I’m not talking about administering a competency test as a requirement to owning a gun. I’m talking about not giving guns to people who have already been adjudicated mentally incompetent. This is why background checks are necessary. If you’ve been adjudicated incompetent, are a convicted felon, have been institutionalized, etc… it comes up on a background check. You don’t get a gun. If your background is clean, the government doesn’t get to and shouldn’t get to make you jump through hoops and make a showing that you deserve a gun. You simply get your gun.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Well, it’s a tough line to walk. Obviously there is a compelling interest in preventing the mentally incompetent and paranoid schizophrenics from owning guns. A distant cousin of mind is actually petitioning to get his guns back now. He shouldn’t. He was convinced there was a conspiracy of people out to get him. His family had him committed. He’s out now. But you just KNOW the guy is still not right in the head within a few minutes of talking to him. On the other hand, low-grade depression certainly shouldn’t deny someone their right to bear arms.
How would the federal government even be able to tell that someone is “mentally incompetent” without access to their medical records?
Who defines “mentally incompetent”, the government?
How do you feel about a simple “competence test” being required before voting?
No, there is a trial, and a person is adjudged mentally incompetent by a jury or judge. I believe it’s a jury trial but am not sure. So, it’s not a ‘simple competence test’ at all but an extensive process by which a jury of peers or a judge only finds mental incompetence based upon a pretty compelling showing and pretty egregious evidence of lack of capacity. I would not be particularly bothered in respect with voting. Since I prefer that paranoid and delusional schizophrenics who believe people who are out to get them and who may be subject to hallucinations not have access to deadly weapons, I’d be ok with it in this case too. And there is a presumption of competence. I’m not talking about administering a competency test as a requirement to owning a gun. I’m talking about not giving guns to people who have already been adjudicated mentally incompetent. This is why background checks are necessary. If you’ve been adjudicated incompetent, are a convicted felon, have been institutionalized, etc… it comes up on a background check. You don’t get a gun. If your background is clean, the government doesn’t get to and shouldn’t get to make you jump through hoops and make a showing that you deserve a gun. You simply get your gun.
[/quote]
I don’t think I have a problem with this type of regulation. The key here is the presumption of competence, and the ruling of mental incompetence being a result of an adjudication or legal process.
The reason this raises red flags is because there are others that propose a much less stringent definition of incompetence than you do. Some have proposed that an “applicant” must “prove” competence (take a test, get a license). Or even that the federal government be able to look through our medical records for any “red flags” before allowing us to own a gun.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Well, it’s a tough line to walk. Obviously there is a compelling interest in preventing the mentally incompetent and paranoid schizophrenics from owning guns. A distant cousin of mind is actually petitioning to get his guns back now. He shouldn’t. He was convinced there was a conspiracy of people out to get him. His family had him committed. He’s out now. But you just KNOW the guy is still not right in the head within a few minutes of talking to him. On the other hand, low-grade depression certainly shouldn’t deny someone their right to bear arms.
How would the federal government even be able to tell that someone is “mentally incompetent” without access to their medical records?
Who defines “mentally incompetent”, the government?
How do you feel about a simple “competence test” being required before voting?
No, there is a trial, and a person is adjudged mentally incompetent by a jury or judge. I believe it’s a jury trial but am not sure. So, it’s not a ‘simple competence test’ at all but an extensive process by which a jury of peers or a judge only finds mental incompetence based upon a pretty compelling showing and pretty egregious evidence of lack of capacity. I would not be particularly bothered in respect with voting. Since I prefer that paranoid and delusional schizophrenics who believe people who are out to get them and who may be subject to hallucinations not have access to deadly weapons, I’d be ok with it in this case too. And there is a presumption of competence. I’m not talking about administering a competency test as a requirement to owning a gun. I’m talking about not giving guns to people who have already been adjudicated mentally incompetent. This is why background checks are necessary. If you’ve been adjudicated incompetent, are a convicted felon, have been institutionalized, etc… it comes up on a background check. You don’t get a gun. If your background is clean, the government doesn’t get to and shouldn’t get to make you jump through hoops and make a showing that you deserve a gun. You simply get your gun.
I don’t think I have a problem with this type of regulation. The key here is the presumption of competence, and the ruling of mental incompetence being a result of an adjudication or legal process.
The reason this raises red flags is because there are others that propose a much less stringent definition of incompetence than you do. Some have proposed that an “applicant” must “prove” competence (take a test, get a license). Or even that the federal government be able to look through our medical records for any “red flags” before allowing us to own a gun.[/quote]
Yes, I agree that such measures would not be justified.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
So, let’s try this instead…forget about licensing and registration. What, if any, regulations do you guys think are acceptable?
Next to none. I think the NICS check is a decent idea as long as the system is administered properly. There are a lot of people barred from legally buying firearms that shouldn’t be. For example, anyone with a dishonorable discharge from the military is SOL. You know what you could get a dishonorable discharge for decades ago? Being gay.
The ATF used to have a program where convicted felons could apply to have their right to purchase firearms restored. I think it has been abandoned. Remember, if you shoplift a couple of DVD’s from Walmart, that could get you a felony conviction in some states. Now, obviously, I have no patience for thieves but I also recognize that someone who does that at 18 and spends the next 20 years working hard, staying honest and raising a family should have a chance to protect said family properly. If the NICS criteria was tightened, I think it is a good idea. [/quote]
It abandons the concept of paying your debt to society.
[quote]
Other than that, all the other shit should be dropped, including all of the prohibitions against machine guns.
Registration serves no purpose other than as a precursor to confiscation. How would it make the public “safer”? I have never heard a decent answer to that question.
The hoops you have to jump through in certain states are extreme. New Jersey requires a separate permit for every handgun, which is a royal pain in the ass and discourages a certain amount of commerce. Also, carry permits are “may issue”. That means unless you work for the government in some armed capacity, there is only one way to get a gun…pay off a police chief. Thats who arbitrarily decides if you get a carry permit as a private citizen. From personal experience, I can tell you that only a few very connected, very wealthy people are ever granted this privilege. Same thing in New York city.
Now, honestly tell me that is American. [/quote]
They had the same deal in Michigan for many years. You had to contribute money to the county sheriff then he would deputise you. It was all about cronyism and elitism. The attitude is that only the lives of the wealthy are worth protecting while us commoners have to fend for ourselves.
It also did a lot to contribute to the demise of Detroit. It is not a coincidence that states with the most draconian carry laws also have cities with the highest crime.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
As far as actual self-defense goes, it IS permissible to use deadly force to prevent serious crimes like rape. At least it is in New York, and New York is one of the more pacifist jurisdictions. So, I suspect this is also the case most other places. Actually, I know it is. It varies from jursidiction to jurisdiction. But the MAJORITY rule is that it’s permisslbe to use deadly force to prevent ‘dangerous felonies’ involving the risk to human life. In most places, robbery, arson, and burglary of a dwelling make the list. Rape too in a lot of places.[/quote]
Actually, some jurisdictions that profess to allow the use of deadly force (like Massachusetts) actually only allow it as an affirmative defense. Therefore, if someone uses successfully deadly force to prevent an imminent thread of serious bodily harm, they still get charged with murder.
(Chapt. 278, Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.))
On the other hand, in a place like New Hampshire, a person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
i Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor’s dwelling or its curtilage.[/i]
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LXII/627/627-4.htm
In sum, justifiable use of deadly force (in defense of yourself or others, either in or outside your house) in NH is not even a crime. As between NH and Mass (or NY for that matter) I’d rather live in a place and not be charged with a crime for protecting myself. The other thing is, while states like Mass profess to allow deadly force, if you are too young, too old, too weak how really do you protect yourself against a hell bent thug if you have no access to a gun?
I dated a girl whose ex-husband was in prison for the murder of both of her parents. She applied for a carry permit for “all lawful purposes”. The local PD gave her one, but only for target shooting. In other words, she couldn’t carry outside her home.