RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government

RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 10:31:56 PM)
I dont think John Q Public should have access. I do believe that there should be someone to monitor these licenses and a review process in place. Apparently there are states that allow certain felons to have gun licenses. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/ps/rpt/2002-R-0335.htm Language in a 2009 bill inadvertently changed state law to allow felons to apply to have their gun rights restored, throwing out provisions that they had to be convicted of only one felony that didn't involve a gun or a criminal homicide. "Anyone -- a rapist, a murderer -- can petition the court for the right to possess a firearm," said Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene. The changes, which weren't intended, also muddied what had been a 15-year waiting period before felons could seek to restore their right to own a firearm, Prozanski said. "They can literally be in prison and make an application," he said. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/02/bill_makes_it_easier_for_viole.html Oregon had to scramble to correct this... Prozanski dashed off an emergency bill that would restore earlier limits, but he ran into a hail of opposition from gun lobbyists. They argued that the current language is good because it allows people convicted of minor felonies to get their rights to own a gun restored more quickly. Amazing how the NRA doesnt see a problem with this. In an attempt to rectify that situation, the Legislature approved Senate Bill 603, which eliminated language limiting which categories of felons could petition to own a gun. Prozanski said he wasn't aware of the effect of the changes until after Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed the bill. He proposed Senate Bill 1064, which would restore the 15-year wait and single-felony limit and rule out felons who used a gun in the commission of a crime or who were convicted of homicide. His bill passed the Senate early Wednesday but ran into trouble in the House after protests by Starrett and Rod Harder, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. Democrats in conservative districts were hesitant to support a bill opposed by the NRA. Starrett and Harder proposed the compromise -- that any application be heard by a Circuit Court judge. Those judges typically have more legal training than a justice of the peace. Prozanski said he can live with the compromise but still thinks the law is too lax. He said he'll continue working to tighten restrictions on felons obtaining firearms. Am I the only one sick of lobbyists?

lovmuffin -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 10:55:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Ok, Tazz, I was able to essentially read all four pages in just a couple minutes, since I just skipped over all the silliness that has nothing to do with the OP (why don't the mods just pull those?) Anyway.... I do not own a gun, and I don't want to. I damn sure know how to shoot one, and I'm a damn good shot. That said, I have no desire to trample on the rights of others to own guns. But I do believe that the current times call for realistic safety measures. I lived in Florida for a while. My friend's brother was a bounty hunter and carried a side arm. No problem. I dated a guy who loved to smoke a bit of weed, and the state gave him a carry license. Getting a concealed carry permit is a step above that. No basic human being needs to hide a gun on their person whenever they choose. If they need to, then I'm going to bet they are doing something they shouldn't, or are foolish enough to think it makes them "cool." Doing something you shouldn't, you are a felon waiting to get caught, shouldn't have a gun. Think it makes you look "cool?" You are too stupid to have received a gun permit of any kind. Cool has nothing to do with it. If you're packing heat it's best that no one know you're carrying. If a guy comes off like he's too cool cause he's packin and shows people then yes, he's "too stupid to have received a gun permit of any kind". But how do you screen for stupid and where do you draw the line at stupid people exercising their rights. Yes, I think it is appropriate for the government (read permit granting agencies, law enforcement (at all levels)) to have and maintain lists of who has applied for and been granted any kind of gun license. I think that list should include what guns each individual owns as well. I do not think that the list should be public information. I also believe said agencies should know who has applied and been denied the right to a gun permit. The list should not include what guns each individual owns. Not only do I agree that "agencies should know who has applied and been denied the right to a gun permit" but they should go after those who are X felons who try to purchase a gun and prosecute. It's a crime for a felon to attempt to purchase a gun. Why should those groups mentioned have access to such information? If a crime is committed, if someone's gun is stolen, any number of other things, those lists in those mentioned hands could be of value. If you are not using your guns for illegal activities, you shouldn't have to worry. Publish the list? As you said, this does allow people to know who doesn't own a gun. It also allows angry people to know what they need to assault a person who does own a gun. Publishing the list is bad, simply because the majority of people in society are too stupid or vindictive to have the right to know. Why do I say that they should also monitor who has applied and been denied a gun permit? Sorry, but I believe those people need monitoring. What do you think the chances are that they might try to purchase a gun illegally? How often might it have been an "impulse" buy (attempt to buy actually)? Sorry, but if you are a convicted felon, you know you can't own a gun. If you have a mental disorder, you shouldn't own a gun. If there is a single report that you abused your spouse, partner or a child, you shouldn't own a gun. In all these instances, it is already known that you can't be trusted with certain things. Allow me to clarify that by mental illness, I am referring to ones that could be problematic. Agoriphobia is technically a mental illness, but not necessarily dangerous. Depression, while appearing innocuous, if someone has easy access to a gun, they might not seek the proper treatment and blow their head off. Sorry, I realize that will be unpopular, but I still think they shouldn't have one. Yes, monitor the X felon idiots and the like who were turned down for permits. They might catch them packin illegal guns. Keep in mind we do what we can but there are always going to be instances of some one slipping through the cracks and life is not without it's risks.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/5/2011 12:15:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Ok, Tazz, I was able to essentially read all four pages in just a couple minutes, since I just skipped over all the silliness that has nothing to do with the OP (why don't the mods just pull those?) Anyway.... I do not own a gun, Tell everyone! LOL and I don't want to. I damn sure know how to shoot one, and I'm a damn good shot. People that dont have one can pretend shoot for protection! That said, I have no desire to trample on the rights of others to own guns. Thanks for the warning that this post is most likely going to try to trample on the rights of others. But I do believe that the current times call for realistic safety measures. Whats different about current times from times past? Realistic? I cant wait to hear this. I lived in Florida for a while. My friend's brother was a bounty hunter and carried a side arm. No problem. I dated a guy who loved to smoke a bit of weed, and the state gave him a carry license. Getting a concealed carry permit is a step above that. No basic human being needs to hide a gun on their person whenever they choose. Really? why not? Not one possible reason that anyone would want to carry. I can think of several reasons. If they need to, then I'm going to bet they are doing something they shouldn't, or are foolish enough to think it makes them "cool." Doing something you shouldn't, you are a felon waiting to get caught, shouldn't have a gun. Well then provide the studies to validate such ridiculous claims. Think it makes you look "cool?" You are too stupid to have received a gun permit of any kind. Try to stay on topic. Yes, I think it is appropriate for the government (read permit granting agencies, law enforcement (at all levels)) to have and maintain lists of who has applied for and been granted any kind of gun license. Now what country did that gain? and what was the results again? LE are not government. I think that list should include what guns each individual owns as well. Yup I knew it, Everytime they say they dont want to trample rights they come out and promote stomping them into oblivion! This post belongs in my trust government thread! LOL I do not think that the list should be public information. Anything entered into any agency under the united states record IS public record. I also believe said agencies should know who has applied and been denied the right to a gun permit. Gun PERMISSION? PERMISSION FROM THE KING TO OWN A GUN? Why should those groups mentioned have access to such information? Because its public and the drones are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Seems that supreme court ruling holds all the way eh.... If a crime is committed, if someone's gun is stolen, any number of other things, those lists in those mentioned hands could be of value. REALLY? How? Will the gun come when a dog whistle is blown? What value? Senseless. If you are not using your guns for illegal activities, you shouldn't have to worry. about what? guns used in crime are always stolen guns LOL Publish the list? As you said, this does allow people to know who doesn't own a gun. Some people foolishly brag about it. It also allows angry people to know what they need to assault a person who does own a gun. Whats that BMG? An army? More like where guns can be stolen while they are at work and later used in a crime. Publishing the list is bad, simply because the majority of people in society are too stupid or vindictive to have the right to know. Stupid and/or vindictive have nothing to do with a right. Publishing? HAving a list is bad LOL Why do I say that they should also monitor who has applied and been denied a gun permit? Sorry, but I believe those people need monitoring. Which people are those? The ones some agent determines does not fit some PROFILE? Advocating profiling now huh? and that is not trampling on rights how? What do you think the chances are that they might try to purchase a gun illegally? I am sure you will provide a study ti support your inference. How often might it have been an "impulse" buy (attempt to buy actually)? Well I think that people who fart should have a hair trigger because you never know. Sorry, but if you are a convicted felon, you know you can't own a gun. WRONG better read the law. LOL If you have a mental disorder, you shouldn't own a gun. Like posting nonsensical unsupported whimsical reasons for trampling on peoples rights? If there is a single report that you abused your spouse, partner or a child, you shouldn't own a gun. Yeh or even worse picked a booger in church! Yeh stomp on those rights! STOMP STOMP! In all these instances, it is already known that you can't be trusted with certain things. Like a keyboard? How about some data and test reports ZIPPO NADA Allow me to clarify that by mental illness, I am referring to ones that could be problematic. Ah yes pre-emptive stomping on rights if someone whimsically guesses there could be a problem! Great idea STOMP! Agoriphobia is technically a mental illness, but not necessarily dangerous. Hell in that case take away knives too! Maybe cut fingers off too! Never can tell these days! Depression, while appearing innocuous, if someone has easy access to a gun, they might not seek the proper treatment and blow their head off. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/smiley-whacky086.gif[/image] Oh yes that about sums it up since everyone gets depressed at some time or antoher lets just start rounding up every gun on the planet! Sorry, I realize that will be unpopular, but I still think they shouldn't have one. well I am glad certain people do not have guns. They shouldnt have keyboards either especially when their posts reach the level of spam and in substance attempt precisely the opposite of their stated intent. I feel so much better knowing that this post was not intended to stomp on any ones rights! Big foot here does not intend to stomp on anyones rights either!! [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/crushed-6.gif[/image] Mr RIGHTS

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/5/2011 12:30:49 AM)
The only thing that I agree with is that the person who wants to buy gun should have at a minimum passed a handling safety course. aside from that the constitution stipulates that anyone who is not in jail and I would add does not rise to the level of a nuisance with their weapons has the right to own and BEAR an ARM. In other words by nusiance endangers the lives of others recklessly. Lists should be destroyed and completely abolished as it violates the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th under the COMMON LAW.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/5/2011 12:41:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Not only do I agree that "agencies should know who has applied and been denied the right to a gun permit" but they should go after those who are X felons who try to purchase a gun and prosecute. It's a crime for a felon to attempt to purchase a gun. Thats not true! It varies from state to state but xfelons can own guns.

lovmuffin -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/5/2011 1:37:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Not only do I agree that "agencies should know who has applied and been denied the right to a gun permit" but they should go after those who are X felons who try to purchase a gun and prosecute. It's a crime for a felon to attempt to purchase a gun. Thats not true! It varies from state to state but xfelons can own guns. I believe it's a violation of federal law as well as what ever your state laws are without an expungement or waiver for an ex felon to possess a firearm or try to purchase one.

xssve -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/5/2011 5:24:23 AM)
I lived in Florida for Three years, and it was easier to get a concealed permit than it was to get a drivers license, if you had a job where you carried cash, I don't suppose it matters much if you were convicted of other felonies or not. And everybody carried a gun, permit or no permit, and I can't say that it was anymore violent than any other place I've been, at least where I was - I don't recall a single homicide in my locality in those three years. Gainsville was a another story, but as far as concealed carry, it made people think twice before messing with anybody. I never carried a gun, but nobody knew who was or who wasn't so it had much the same effect whether you carried a gun or not.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/5/2011 6:27:21 AM)
quote: I believe it's a violation of federal law as well as what ever your state laws are without an expungement or waiver for an ex felon to possess a firearm or try to purchase one. Not true. Louisiana After 10 years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence (La. Rev. Stat. § 14: 95. 1 (c)(1)). Minnesota After 10 years has elapsed since the person was restored to civil rights and during that time the person was not convicted of any other crime of violence (Minn. Stat. § 609. 165 subd. 1a). South Dakota After 15 years has elapsed since the person was last discharged from prison, jail, probation, or parole (S. D. Codified Laws § 22-14-15). http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/ps/rpt/2002-R-0335.htm. And Oregon, as posted above.

lovmuffin -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/5/2011 5:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I believe it's a violation of federal law as well as what ever your state laws are without an expungement or waiver for an ex felon to possess a firearm or try to purchase one. Not true. Louisiana After 10 years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence (La. Rev. Stat. § 14: 95. 1 (c)(1)). Minnesota After 10 years has elapsed since the person was restored to civil rights and during that time the person was not convicted of any other crime of violence (Minn. Stat. § 609. 165 subd. 1a). South Dakota After 15 years has elapsed since the person was last discharged from prison, jail, probation, or parole (S. D. Codified Laws § 22-14-15). http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/ps/rpt/2002-R-0335.htm. And Oregon, as posted above. Under the Brady Act, you cannot have a gun for personal or business if you: 1. Were convicted of a crime punishable by being in prison for more than one year; 2. Are a fugitive from justice; 3. Are addicted to, or illegally use, any controlled substance; 4. Have been ruled mentally defective by a court, or are committed to a mental institution; 5. Are an illegal alien living in the United States unlawfully; 6. Received a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces; 7. Renounced your U.S. citizenship, if you are a U.S. citizen; 8. Are subject to a court restraining order that involves your 'intimate partner,' your partner's child, or children; or 9. Were convicted of domestic violence in any court of a misdemeanor. I think if your state law allows you to have a gun or permit you would be within the guidelines of federal law. After 10 after 15 years or whatever I think may mean, at least in some states, that after that time you can apply for a waver. I'm not going to research it all and your link doesn't work. Though I can tell you first hand about 2 things. One individual I know had to get a waver because of a misdemeanor drug offense. And one time several of us were engaged in a conversation about having a felony conviction and getting caught in possession of a gun (state of FL). The lawyer among us said "it's 5 years if you get caught with it, you serve the first day, you serve the last". I don't know the process or details in this state for legal gun ownership with a felony or drug offense.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/5/2011 5:54:54 PM)
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=Louisiana+%0A%0AAfter+10+years+from+the+date+of+completion+of+sentence%2C+probation%2C+parole%2C+or+suspension+of+sentence+(La.+Rev.+Stat.+%C2%A7+14%3A+95.+1+(c)(1)). First link. Brady Act, February 28, 1994. Louisiana Automatic Restoration of Rights: • Right to vote “may be suspended” while a person is “under an order of imprisonment for conviction of a felony.” La. Const. art. I, § 10. Disenfranchisement applies to people on parole and also to those whose prison sentence suspended. See Rosamund v. Alexander, 846 So. 2d 829 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2003). “Full rights of citizenship shall be restored upon termination of state and federal supervision following conviction for any offense.” Id. § 20. This provision restores only the “basic rights” of citizenship (voting, holding office), not privileges (liquor license). Right to run for elective office is restored 15 years after completion of sentence even if not pardoned. Id. § 10 (C). Under La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 401(A)(5), the right to serve on a jury is not restored unless the person is pardoned. See also State v. Baxter, 357 So. 2d 271 (La. 1978) (includes federal convictions). See Helen Ginger Berrigan, Executive Clemency, First-Offender Pardons, Automatic Restoration of Rights, 62 La. L. Rev. 49 (2001). First offender pardon - A first offender (defined in La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:572(C) as a person “convicted within this state of a felony but never previously convicted of a felony” under federal law or the law of any state or country) “shall be pardoned automatically upon completion of his sentence without a recommendation of the Board of Pardons and without action by the governor.” La. Const. art. IV, § 5(E)(1); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:572(B)(1). Entitlement to first offender pardon is guaranteed by the constitution and may not be infringed by statute. Op. La. Att’y Gen. No. 04-0080 (2005). It does not depend upon having paid court costs. Id. o Eligibility: Applies to state convictions on or after January 1, 1975. Since 1999 amendment to Constitution, first offender pardon available only to persons convicted of “non-violent crime, or convicted of aggravated battery, second degree battery, aggravated assault, mingling harmful substances, aggravated criminal damage to property, purse snatching, extortion, or illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities”. La. Const. art. IV, § 5(E)(1) as amended by Acts 1999, No. 1398, § 1, approved Oct. 23, 1999, eff. Nov. 25, 1999. All others must apply for full pardon. o Effect: First offender pardon restores “all rights of citizenship and franchise,” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:572(D), but does not restore privileges such as liquor license. See State v. Adams, 355 So. 2d 917 (La. 1978). Unlike a gubernatorial pardon, does not preclude use in subsequent prosecution, or use to disqualify for occupational licensing. § 15:572(E). Firearms disability (applicable to any person convicted of a crime of violence or a drug offense) ends ten years after completion of sentence so long as no other felony conviction occurs during that period. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:95.1(C)(1). A Governor’s pardon will restore firearm privileges prior to the ten years, but a first offender pardon will not. State v. Wiggins, 432 So. 2d 234 (La. 1983) http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/File/Collateral%20Consequences/Louisiana.pdf

Termyn8or -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/6/2011 2:41:21 AM)
Look at how much ammo is sold in this country, and then have a look at how much is used. Where is it going ? It's going into storage for when the shit hits the fan, which most people think will never happen AGAIN. People may have forgotten, but this is our way, and it always has been. I can make a zip gun in about a half an hour on a lathe, And bear in mind that I own two lathes. They will never stop us no matter how hard they try. And that is what keeps me here. If that right to alter or abolish ever goes, I go. It will no longer be my country. I don't care how many laws they pass, as long as there is some doubt that they will get shot, like the doubt we have about our "rights" being protected, we have some kind of chance. Once that's gone, our founding Fathers may have just as well sat there and did nothing. THAT is the the difference between us and them. THAT is the difference that may save the world because the rest of the world gave up their guns. I would've loved to go to Austrailia, but then they took the guns, so much for that. Now useless. T^T

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375