Les Jones

This one went a few rounds on THR:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97256

Here's my bit from that thread:

The Second Amendment, which provides that:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Is hereby clarified as follows:

1) It is indeed incorporated to the States as per the 14th amendment.
2) Arms means arms of any description without reference to their form, function, or utility or lack of utility in the organized or unorganized militia.
3) People means free people of any description, without reference to their membership of nonmembership in any organized militia.
4) "Shall not be infringed" means shall not be impeded, dimished, or obstructed in any way shape or form.
5) People convicted of violent felonies may have their gunrights suspended (for a fixed period of time?) by way of a specific unanimous finding by a jury of their peers, as a part of their sentence.
5a) The onus is upon the State to show that gunrights have been suspended, and a person shall be deemed fully vested in their gunrights unless their name appears upon a diligently and correctly maintained list, which is available for lookup to all citizens via phone call. ID may be required for acquisition or transfer of a firearm, and no records shall be kept of any transfer queries.
6) People having suffered such loss of gunrights, having served their sentence, may appear before a jury of their peers once a year to plea for the restoration of their gunrights.
7) People who are shown to have mental problems such that they present a danger to themselves or others shall be treated in a secure facility until such time that they do not present a danger to themselves or others, at which point further suspension of their gunrights would be pointless, now wouldn't it?

Speaking as someone who's actually worked in law enforcement, I'd have to say that the laws which prohibit convicted felons from possessing guns are good ones. (I just wish that they'd actually be diligently enforced.) I also think it's a good idea to keep those tortured souls with mental problems from acquiring firearms while they're under a doctor's care.

Other than that, I actually agree with most of the safety regulations written into the 1963 Gun Control Act even though there was some opposition to it when the law was apssed. After all, who doesn't think that a transfer bar safety is a good thing?

Unlike geekWithA.45, I don't think it's desirable to make the suspension of gun rights a part of a sentence. By the commission of a felony the perp certainly showed that he has blatant disregard for the rights of others.

James

Depends on the felony.
Did you know it's a felony in the city I live in to leave an 'abandoned' car on city property? We have city property across the street from us, and someone left a car that broke down over there. (It had, mind you, died during the aftermath of Hurricane Charley.) The city left a notice on the car that the owner would be charged with a felony unless the car was removed within 3 days. Luckily the guy did manage to get back and tow it away (not that easy when almost no gasoline was available)
Depends on the felony.

In Massachusetts - and I suspect elsewhere - it is a felony to carry a knife with a blade of more than three inches in length.

So be careful the next time you buy a set of steak knives. Have 'em delivered.

"Gun control is hitting your intended target."

As I see it, the problem with laws prohibiting felons or crazy folk from firearms is that those are precisely the folk who either will not or cannot OBEY laws. There is a difference in kind between natural laws (the law of gravity, for example) and statutes (gun control laws.)

Gun control laws frequently seem to miss their intended targets.

How about:

Solicitation to commit an illegal act is illegal.
Attempt to commit an illegal act is illegal.
Conspiracy to comit an illegal act is illegal.

Murder is illegal.
Assault is illegal.
Larceny is illegal.
Robbery is illegal.
Burglary is illegal.
Forgery is illegal.
False pretenses is illegal.
Embezzelment is illegal.
Arson is illegal.
Rape is illegal.
Kidnapping is illegal.
Hijacking or privateering or pirating a vehicle is illegal.

That about covers it, though perhaps I could be convinced that the negligent discharge of a firearm that resulted in harm might also be illegal by way of a criminal negligence statute.

Not sure of much this list of general common law type crimes doesn't cover.

Countertop: I was thinking more along the lines of laws relating to purchase and possession, which is what most gun laws cover. I probably should have made that clearer.

I think Countertop was making the point that anything bad that you can do with a gun is already
illegal, so he's against gun laws(purchase, possession)at all.
I would favor laws banning handgun possesion in public for anyone under sentence(parole,probation)and that's about it. Don't let them out if they aren't ready.

"Depends on the felony."

Good point, Kathy. So how's about a felony that's recognized in all 50 states?

James

The rationale for suspension of gunrights in the first place is that this is a public defense measure based on the increased probability that a violent felon will continue to be violent.

As a theoretical purist, I'm not entirely happy with this, as it falls into "prior restraint", which is why I put in some fairly strong checks and balances such that gunrights could be restored by jury.

I picked VIOLENT felonies precisely because intentional violence is pretty easy to identify, directly speaks to illegitimate use of firearms, and is illegal in all 50 states.

There are plenty of crimes that are classed as felonies that have nothing to do with violence of any sort. In these cases, the public defense basis for gunright suspension does not exist, and therefore it is innaplicable. It also protects us from the phenomena of "felony creep", wherein increasingly innocuous crimes are classed as felonies for political and statistical reasons.

In short, suspension of Constitutionally protected rights is serious business, and if done at all, it must be applied with full procedural safeguards, and narrowly in scope such that it affects only those who by their actions have proven they cannot be trusted.

I'd eliminate all prior restraint based gun laws as they conflict with both the 2nd Amendment & the basis for the 2nd Amendment, which is the Right to Arms.

In other words, no civil or criminal penalties whatsoever for merely possessing or owning a firearm. For using a firearm in an unjustifiably threatening or negligent manner, yes. For simply owning or carrying one? Nope.

Now before anyone gets their feathers all ruffled about murderers being able to walk into a hardware store & buy a Tommy gun, I'd stiffen the penalties for violent, confrontational crime. More or less giving someone who commits such an act a longer sentence. After 20 years or so if he's deemed fit for release into society he should be a member of society, not a second class citizen with only partial Rights. Don't like that he can legally buy & carry a gun? Then increase the term of incarciration for the crime.

As has been pointed out there's ben a creep in the types of offenses that currently disqualify one from possessing a weapon legally. Now it's any crime punishable by more than one year (in some cases two) in prison & any domestic violence misdemeanor. These laws trap far more people who for whatever reason ran afoul of the law but have no long term harmful intent. & remember it's "punishable", not "sentenced to". Commit a crime that could get you 1 year & 1 day, but the judge feels that while technically guilty there were mitigating circumstances & you only deserve a 1 day suspended sentence & you still become disqualified from legally owning a weapon.

So any laws that punish mere possession, based on the configuration of the weapon, or prior condition of incarciration, or societal status, should be wiped out.

& while I'm at it I'd clarify that while federalism is important, that does not justify the States stepping on an individual Right, such as carrying a weapon openly or concealed. So the laws requiring a permit or outright prohibitions of carry (concealed or open) would be 86'ed as well.

So yes, the convicted murderer should be able to walk out of prison then hit the 7-11 & pick up a silenced MP-5. It may seem scarey to you, but A: show me a criminal that has the cash that has trouble getting anything he wants now & B: look at the list of people with non-violent intentions who are caught up in the ineffective & immoral laws that claim (but fail) to prevent those bad people from getting guns.

James,

You mean the 1968 GCA? & where does any (unconstitutional) federal gun control law mention a transfer bar safety?

Back in 2002, David Kopel proposed that government employees (law enforcement, tax collectors, regulators, etc.) would not be exempt from gun control laws the way they are now.



If the government decides that "assault weapons" have no useful purpose, they would still be free to ban them. But they couldn't get any for themselves.



If handgun ownership is prohibited, there would be no exception for Dianne Feinstein, or the bodyguards of Ted Kennedy.



As a result, governments would actually be forced to think about -- and live with -- the consequences of the gun control laws they pass. This would make them much less likely to pass superfluous gun control laws. It would be a self-correcting feedback loop.



Although Kopel didn't mention it, I believe such a policy would also answer the question of "If the second amendment doesn't pertain to nuclear weapons, then where do you draw the line?"



If the local police feel that they need nuclear weapons, anti-aircraft artillery, or rocket launchers to "serve and protect" the community, then the members of that community should have access to the same hardware. If the police don't need those items, then neither does the citizenry.



If "assault weapons" are only needed by drug dealers and mass murderers, why are police exempted from the bans on "assault weapons"? If the police have "assault weapons," then I want them, too!



Of course, it may lead to a situation where if a police department is only permitted to have .38 revolvers, then that's what the citizenry would be restricted to. I wouldn't like such restrictions, but I could accempt the fairness of it.



Neither side would be better armed than the other -- and I think that is within the spirit of the second amendment.

The Second Amendment is enough, what is needed is to stop pampering criminals. What we need is an amendment or law that strips away criminals rights. Since many or most crimes are against someone elses rights and denies them their rights to it, then criminals should have this done to them. This would put an end to many of these lawsuits that criminals file while in prison for petty things such as not getting to watch TV. Remove the criminals rights and the laws we have to live by wouldn't have to be constantly changing and becoming more complex in the process. I keep wondering why my prusuit of happiness must be compromised by the wishes of others...

Go to this site for the straight dope on gun control http://gunfreehome.4t.com

I believe that it is still under construction but this guy has the right Idea

Ilost my rights about 10 years ago because I pushed my wife can I get them back and how? Please write me back.

I LOST MY RIGHTS EIGHTYEARS AGO. I WENT TO COURT AND IT WAS DROPED. BE FOR I WENT TO COURT THE CITY SENT THIS TO NASHVILLE TN. NASHVILLE WILL NOT LET ME BUY A GUN. BUT THE CITY I LIVE IN CALLED ME FOR JURY DUTY. WHAT CAN I DO.

I LIVE IN CA I HAVE A FELONY FROM 12 YEARS AGO FOR DRUG CHARGES CAN I GET THEM DROPED DOWN SO I CAN OWN A GUN.

If you can't trust an ex-con with a gun, why the hell did you release him from prison in the first place?