Gun Control Question

[Shmackey]

I'm curious to hear the opinions of the more ardent pro-gun-rights folks here about a question that I now realize isn't totally black or white.

Who, if anyone, should *not* be allowed to own a handgun?

I could elaborate, but I think that leaving the question open like this could make for an interesting discussion.

[KSFreeman]

Easy--3 part test:

1. published an article in a gun magazine;
2. owns a flowered shirt;
3. takes photos of himself pointing guns at himself.

All three elements must be shown. Their word processors would be confiscated, their shirts burned in the street, and they would be forced to take 400 hours of formal instruction as part of their rehab.

[Dain Bramage]

I think my state, Washington, has it about right. Although populated by the looney-left, and long a socialist bastion , it is a "shall issue" state, and even has a strong freedom-to-bear-arms clause in the state constitution.

Every right has some restrictions (and many responsibilities) attached to it. People that have been found mentally incompetent should not have handguns. Felons should not have handguns, unless their rights have been restored. Children should not have handguns without adult supervision. We may quibble about the age of emancipation, I say 18, the state says 21.

That's about it. IMHO, of course.

[David Scott]

I pretty much go along with the State of Florida:

Possible Reasons for Ineligibility:

The physical inability to handle a firearm safely.

A felony conviction (unless civil and firearm rights have been restored by the convicting authority).

Having adjudication withheld or sentence suspended on a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence unless three years have elapsed since probation or other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled.

A conviction for a violent crime in the last three years, either misdemeanor or felony.

A conviction for violation of controlled substance laws or multiple arrests for such offenses.

A record of drug or alcohol abuse.

Two or more DUI convictions within the previous three years.

Being committed to a mental institution or adjudged incompetent or mentally defective.

Failing to provide proof of proficiency with a firearm.

Having been issued a domestic violence injunction or an injunction against repeat violence that is currently in force.

Renouncement of U.S. citizenship.

A dishonorable discharge from the armed forces.

Being a fugitive from justice.

[Tamara]

Only the same people who are not allowed to speak freely, read or write whatever they want, and peacably assemble in public.

Only the people who are not allowed to worship or not worship as they see fit.

Only those people who can be tried twice for the same crime,and do not have the right to a lawyer or a trial by a jury of their peers.

Only those people who may have their houses searched, persons detained or papers seized without a warrant.

Only people who may have government troops quartered in their homes without their permission.

Only the people who may be forced to testify against themselves in court, and who may not confront their accusers in the court of law.

At least, that's how it was in a distant land called "The United States of America".

[Mr. James]

Tamara has it right, and eloquently so.

Florida does not.

[VictorLouis]

Here's just a few of the 'Possible Reasons for Ineligibility' that I take issue with:

"The physical inability to handle a firearm safely."

Nothing like leaving it to the State's vague definition.

"Having adjudication withheld or sentence suspended on a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence unless three years have elapsed since probation or other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled."

So, you get the raw-end of a 'he-said/she-said' and you lose your right to self-defense?

"A conviction for a violent crime in the last three years, either misdemeanor or felony."

Yet again, someone says YOU started the fight in which you were simply defending yourself, and you get charged with misdemeanor battery.

"A conviction for violation of controlled substance laws or multiple arrests for such offenses."

Your 19y.o., get pinched for a jay, and now you can't have a gun at age forty?!?!

"A record of drug or alcohol abuse."

I might be tempted to go along with this one, depending on the definition of record.

"Two or more DUI convictions within the previous three years."

Of which, this would be but ONE example.

"Being committed to a mental institution or adjudged incompetent or mentally defective."

Will such right be restored upon a physician's determination of wellness, or restoration of faculties?

"Failing to provide proof of proficiency with a firearm."

Not in Fl., but FAR too rife with an opportunity for abuse. Anyone abreast of the situation with CCW in New Mexico???

"Having been issued a domestic violence injunction or an injunction against repeat violence that is currently in force."

What's the name of that doctor in Texas?


Granted, I know this pertains to the issuance of CCW in Fl., NOT the general RKBA. BUT, that was the subject of the poster's question.



[

[James K]

Hi, guys,

The key word and problem is with "allowed". Gun ownership is a right, so the question is very like asking "who should not be allowed to speak or worship freely, or not be allowed to vote".

Obviously, there have to be some restrictions on any right; some forms of speech are so unacceptable that they can be restricted (the proverbial "fire" in a crowded theater, or inciting to violence); some worship may be curtailed (human sacrifice); voting can be limited to those over a certain age and those who are registered (to prevent vote fraud).

Gun rights can be limited also. Unfortunately, even the most reasonable restrictions (banning gun possession by felons) can be extended and corrupted by police or lawmakers to effectively negate the right. It is this that we must be on guard against. A right is of no value if it cannot be exercised.

This is the way all rights can be rendered null, without ever actually violating them. We can have freedom of worship, but zoning laws can prohibit public gatherings. We can have freedom of the press, but government will close dissenting newspaper offices for "safety violations". We can have the right to own guns, but no gun manufacturers or dealers and no ranges to shoot at (this is the approach taken recently by the Brady coalition and others). We can have the right to vote, but campaign finance laws can restrict campaign advertising to candidates (the McCain bill) with no outside voices allowed. At the extreme, polling places can "run out of ballots" or voting machines can be rigged.

There are a million ways to have lots of rights and yet be able to exercise none. The Germans under Hitler had a constitution chock full of "rights"; the paper meant nothing to the Gestapo.

Jim

[C.R.Sam]

In jail, no guns.

Not in jail, no restriction.

Sam

[Rovert]

I'd like to reply, but I disqualified myself by living in New Jersey.

All kidding aside, this is a delicate issue, and if you take a look at some of my thoughts in my poll here http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...threadid=90099 you'll get an idea of where my head is at.

Yes, gun ownership is a right in our country. Somehow, driving a car isn't. Presumably that's because it is perceived to be a matter of public safety. Those of us who believe in the 2nd amendment probably wouldn't hesitate to send our children to a Driver's Education course before they take their test to get their licenses. We do this to ensure some sort of minimal competency, and safety, for them and the general public, when they're behind the wheel, so they come home to us at the end of the day in one piece.

So, I could see where some sort of course to assess and/or train for minimal competency in the areas of operation, safety and legality (threat assessment... knowing when and where to pull the trigger) wouldn't be a bad idea. I dunnow about any of you guys, but I spent weeks before filling out my permit application asking questions about the repsonsibilities of gun ownership before applying, and HOURS at the range renting different guns to become comfortable shooting different types.

I do understand that starting to 'prequalify' individuals for rights can roll down a very slippery slope, but I also don't know if it's smart to just give a gun out to anyone who raises his hand. It was noted earlier that along with the RIGHT goes a RESPONSIBILITY. Not just anyone is capable of dealing with the reality of that responsibility.

So, if we agree that safety is a good thing, and we agree that just like driving a car can be dangerous without training, that owning a gun without training can also be danergous, I propose that a qualifying course as mentioned above, be part of the permit process. However, the 'permit process' would mean a FEDERAL program of Shall Issue criteria applies to ALL STATES, and that NO individual State could overrule the law. Period.

However, that training comes at an economic cost. Someone has to pay for it, and it is illegal and unconstitutional to tax, or charge for, a constitutional right (another one of those broken laws we have here in NJ).

Therefore, I propose that this class should be funded by our tax dollars, so that the Liberals can put the money they take from us in taxes to good use, since this WOULD be a 'social program', no?

[blades67]

I'm with Tamara and Sam on this one.

[Vladimir_Berkov]

Many pro-gun people want to prohibit felons and the mentally-ill from buying guns.

However, if them having a gun is so dangerous, why aren't they either in prison or a mental institution? Or is the felon or mental patient who doesn't have a gun somehow going to be perfectly safe with a baseball bat or knife?

[John Marshall]

I believe you have a fundamental problem, Rovert. We possess the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms. Therefore, there can be no "permit process". When you agree to the need for a permit to exercise a Right, you change that Right into a State-Controlled Privilege.

[Infidel]

Sign me up for Tamara's team.

[MeekAndMild]

Who, if anyone, should *not* be allowed to own a handgun?

Sounds like Tamera is right.

If she isn't my vote is that anyone who works for any political figure, Hollywood actor, talking head, college professor, corporate weenie or other riff raff or acts in any way as bodyguard for the above should not be allowed to carry. The riff raff mentioned could carry just like us common citizens with the proper papers of course. Considering the high rate of shootings and other accidents I really wonder if LEOs should also be prohibited.

However, if them having a gun is so dangerous, why aren't they either in prison or a mental institution? Or is the felon or mental patient who doesn't have a gun somehow going to be perfectly safe with a baseball bat or knife?

There is a 40 year long concerted effort by the liberal left to disband our mental hospital system and prevent the treatment of the mentally ill. They have been closing mental hospitals for years but no one seems to notice. (One of my theories is that so many of the leftists are also psycho-ceramics they wouldn't have anyone to vote for them if all the mentally ill were locked away.)

[RWK]

I'm with my friends Sam and Tam.

It constantly amazes me how vigorously liberals protest the slightest, perceived limitations to other Amendments, but say/do absolutely nothing regarding massive violations to the Second. What part of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms do they fail to understand?

The Constitution is our ultimate safeguard -- and many of us have sacredly sworn to support and defend it -- so we should abide by it or amend it (Heaven forbid).

Until it is modified, it is both clear and the final arbiter, "law of the land".

[Thairlar]

I'm with Tamara and Sam. The problem we have is that violent offenders get released early to make room for people who have commited victimless crimes that carry stiff mandatory sentences as set forth in the war on some drugs. Anyone who can not be trusted with a firearm should not be released from prison. Period.

[Hal]

Who, if anyone, should *not* be allowed to own a handgun?

<sarcasm/on>
Black males between the ages of 15 and 30. I have statistics to back it up. <sarcasm/off>

Tam/Sam have it right.

[Rovert]

John, obviously you didn't bother reading past the second sentence in my post. Try reading the third sentence.

I see both sides of this issue. Let me play devil's advocate, by challenging everyone to take a step out of the circle and look from the outside in for a second, by asking the question a different way.

Do you guys think that just anyone should own a gun? Are you proposing that anyone, anywhere, at any time, be able to get a gun? The criminals? The mentally ill? Those with a history of substance abuse?

As I acknowledged in my post, gun ownership is a right in our country, just like voting is a right. But are you seriously suggesting that the Constutition shouldn't be changed in any way whatsoever?

You may recall that at one time, African-Americans and Women didn't have the RIGHT to vote, since that's not what was intended in the bill of rights and constitution. Only a select segment of the population was intended by our Founding Fathers to be able to vote. But, we changed that.

So, if you agree that it's OK to change the Constitution on one thing, then logic dictates that other changes are permissible, and even necessary in some cases. The Constitution of the United States is a living document, and was intended to be so.

Now, if you go into the polling machine, pull the lever, and it turns out you made a bad decision because the candidate is an idiot, you can take it back in another four years by voting again. If you shoot your mouth off exercising the first amendment, you can change your opinion based on new information. If you pull the trigger on a gun, and made a bad decision, someone dies. You can't take that back. You can't change that later.

So, all I'm suggesting is that it just may be possible that some changes to the Constitution are for the better. And if we agree that gun ownership opens the door to potentially irreversible decisions, where people can die, do you still believe it's a bad idea that some sort of qualification procedure be instituted to verify competency?

No process can be guaranteed of succeeding, but I think we can all agree that the present regulations have prevented weapons from falling into the hands of those who would do wrong with them. Yes, criminals will always find an illegal way to get a gun, but why make it easy for them? I don't think any of us would want to make it easier for an ex-Felon with a prior record of drug busts or armed robbery to walk into a gun store or show and walk out with a handgun. Does it represent an inconvenience to us law abiding citizens? Yes. But that's just the penalty that the 'good guys' have paid throughout history. The honest many have always been inconvenienced by the dishonest few.

Just fuel for tought. I reserve the right to change my opinion (or even to have one to begin with) in light of new information or compelling arguements either way.

[Ala Dan]

Any convicted felon, habitual drug and
alcohol user, persons who denounce their
U.S. citizenship, domestic terrorist's,
mentally deranged person's, and Billary
and Hillary Klinton.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.

[Tamara]

Do you guys think that just anyone should own a gun? Are you proposing that anyone, anywhere, at any time, be able to get a gun? The criminals? The mentally ill? Those with a history of substance abuse?

If society deems them safe enough to walk the streets; safe enough to trust with access to baseball bats, knives, tire irons gasoline and matches, automobiles, machetes, poisonous chemicals, piano wire, etcetera; then, yes, they should obviously be trusted with guns. You can't deny someone access to one because they might misuse it. Once you do that, you step onto a very slippery slope, for you then must decide what degree of likelihood of misuse warrants the denial of this right. I mean, hey, there's a slim chance that you or I might suffer a sudden loss of sanity and misuse a gun. Should our rights be curtailed, then? Oh, that likelihood is too small, right? Then what is the proper cutoff point? More importantly, who decides?

As I acknowledged in my post, gun ownership is a right in our country, just like voting is a right. But are you seriously suggesting that the Constutition shouldn't be changed in any way whatsoever?

Yes, it is a right. Let's examine it in that context:

"Do you guys think that just anyone should have a right to due process of law? Are you proposing that anyone, anywhere, at any time, be able to recieve a fair trial? The criminals? The mentally ill? Those with a history of substance abuse?"

Does my position make more sense when viewed in that light?

[viper]

I agree with Tamara. In fact I might be a little harder-core than her with regards to this issue, although I'm not sure.

Here's my question: Why should felons who have served their time and supposedly paid their debt to society, now have permanently lost a bunch of their inherent rights under God? Specifically, why should they have their 2nd Amendment right to self defense permanently taken away from them, particularly if their felony conviction is for a NON-violent offense? Have they paid their debt to society, or not? Do they not deserve a second chance now? Or, should they instead permanently lose various constitutional rights, and have sort of a scarlet letter "A" on their chest that follows them around forever? Aren't we supposed to get second chances and fresh starts in this country? Silly me, but I thought this was kinda' one of the things this country was supposed to be about, something that go's hand-in-hand with FREEDOM.

I've always wondered this. Don't get me wrong, I realise the risk in arming certain people, but two things: One, aren't violent felons who want a gun going to obtain one anyway? And secondly, couldn't we just enforce the laws more vigorously, so if a felon is caught committing a crime for the second time with a gun, the penalty is just incredibly severe, instead of taking away the guy's 2nd Amendment rights.

Frankly, where does it stop? If you have a felony background, should you also lose your 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights? Maybe your 7th, while we're at it? Or, about your 8th, just for good measure?

The 2nd Amendment is supposed to be one of our inalienable rights under GOD, guys. It's not supposed to be able to be usurped by the government AT ALL, for any reason. It doesn't say, "the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, except if they have been convicted of a felony." Being convicted of a crime, under a strict adherence to the constitution, is not supposed to keep you from being able to own anything, or to automatically turn you into a criminal once again automatically because you do, as long as that thing is a legal product--and guns are.

Now, they confiscate people's guns if they have a restraining order against them, particularly in domestic disputes. So, if your ex-wife, ex-husband, ex-girlfriend, or ex-boyfriend files for a restraining order against you, you automatically lose your right to posess a firearm without any due process whatsoever. It's incredibly easy for anyone to get a restraining order against anybody.

Now, I'm not a felon, nor have I ever had a restraining order against me(knock on wood for both), but I'll tell you what, I don't think it's right. But do you have any idea how freaking easy it is to be convicted of a felony or have a restraining order filed against you today, with our legal system the way it is? Hell, you can be convicted of a felony for driving offenses, or for violating some obscure white-collar law.

Look, if you think your ex-spouse wants to kill you, arm yourself. It's as simple as that. Take some lessons(if necessary), and take some responsibility for your own protection--instead of handing that responsibility over to the state, giving them more power, and letting them infringe on our constitutional rights. The way it is now, if your ex-spouse, or really anyone you've had any kind of dispute with, is pissed off at you for whatever reason, and knows you own firearms, they can just file a restraining order against you(which again, is usually quite easy to do), and get your gun's taken away immediately--no trial, no real proof. This is why the domestic dispute/restraining order gun confiscation laws are now being successfully challenged on constitutional grounds. I know of one guy who's already won his suit. I think it was in Texas, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone can clarify this for me.

Well, that's all I've got, for now.

[viper]

Actually, upon reading Tamara's posts for a second time, I can see I don't go any further on this issue than Tamara does. She's crystalized it pretty well.

By the way, Tamara, were you ever able to stop by my site? I actually wouldn't mind your opinion on it, even if you don't like it. As long as it's constructive, I'd like to know your thoughts.

[Ala Dan]

From a law enforcement standpoint-

Do you people who support the "second chance"
theory think that recently captured Federal
fugitive Clayton Lee Waagner should be able
to legally obtain a firearm, once his debt
is paid to society? After all, he's been
an escapee since last February; a suspect
in multiple bank robbery's, and suspected
of mailing hoax anthrax letter's to abortion
clinic's although he's harmed no one?

Let's say, he E.O.S.'s (End Of Sentence) in
good standing, and a model prisoner. Do you
folk's think it's right for him to be able
to legally own a handgun? May be he hasn't
killed anybody; but there's always the first
time, and it would make it a lot easier if
this subject had a handgun on his person,
whether its legal or not. His wife stated
shortly after capture, " He was good to our
kid's". But, what about someone else's kid's?
Are they in any danger? Come on folk's, let's
get a handle on life in the real world; once
a convict, the temptation is there for that
person to return to their evil way's.

Respectfully,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.

[Al Norris]

I just have to add my two cents to this thread. That also implies that I could be completely wrong in my thinking.

Rights are not absolute. I think we can all agree upon this. I think we can also agree that under certain conditions, a court may sentence an individual to fines and/or prison AND restrict/revoke certain rights of that individual.

Now should such restriction, such as the restriction to keep and bear arms, be permanent? I think it could be. I would think that it depends upon the severity and nature of the offence.

Should such a restriction apply to the domicile of the individual? No. The individual has the right of self preservation. If the individual does not have this right, then execute him/her and be done with it. For those of you that are against the death penalty, then make life imprisonment just that.

Should it apply to the individuals spouse; children; parents that live with the individual? No. No one else should be punished for what another does. By restricting arms from the domicile, you negate a right of self defense, not only of the restricted individual, but others that have no criminal history or intent. Clearly, to me at least, this is unlawfull.

Having written the above, I also strongly believe that an individual should also have the means for complete restoration of all rights at some point. How this would be accomplished, I have not been able to properly articulate...yet.

The only persons who should not be allowed to have any weapons at any time, would be any member of any Federal alphabet agency.

Just my opinion, of course, and I could be clouded by personal animosity.