I saw a small girl do that in the parking lot the other day.  She was trailing behind her unattentive father.  Thankfully I was paying better attention than he was.

 

Explain why a violent felon should get their right to possess a firearm back.

I'm literally advocating punishing the individual, not the collective.

Explain why a person convicted of kidnappper/rapist/murderer/Assault 1st should be allowed to possess firearms.

Not a damn thing.

However, someone convicted of a violent felony should not have their rights restored at the completion of their sentence.

No, he wasnt.

I havent run him to see his entire history.
If he has no prior violent felony convictions, then fine, restore his rights.
If he's got a conviction for a violent felony, then fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Agreed

I don't know off the top of my head but I think it's a misdemeanor. I bet this guy was a prior felon and was carrying a gun which is "unlawful possession of a firearm by certain persons"

Seeing as he served prison time I'm going to also bet he wasn't a first time offender. Most first timers get a SIS or SES and never see a prison cell.

Always nice to see the statists arguing "but he's dangerous! " arguments as an excuse to restrict freedoms.  

Automobiles are known to cause tens of thousands of deaths a year, they're violent machines, why are we allowed them?  We've got to do something!  

Mental gymnastics going on because herp derp it'd be dangerous.  

Good judge decision for a change.  I'll happily live life with the consequences of freedom, not the lack thereof.

 
"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."

Unless they've demonstrated themselves to be dangerous or some psychiatrist or medical board rules them mentally unfit or when a Congressperson says they're going to hurt people or when the DHS says they could be a homegrown right wing extremist terrorist.  

You didn't see all those following words?

 
Shit I must have an old edition of the USC.

How were you planning on stopping them?



 

I have no issue with the judge's decision.

You're arguing about sentencing. That is a different discussion.
It should be the same discussion, but it's not.

If the US were to adopt a prison system where upon the convicts were responsible for their own care, I would have no problem with life imprisonment.
Since the tax payers are on the hook for Charles Manson et al, I have a problem with just leaving someone in prison for life for things that dont merit the death penalty.

Think about it for a bit....
If someone is so messed up, and their crime is so horrific, that they need to be locked away for the rest of their lives, should they not be put to death instead?

If violent felons are being released from prison, why should they be able to legally possess firearms like the rest of the law abiding population?
California released ALOT of felons from prison recently (last few years) due to budget issues. Should the violent felons released from prison in California be allowed to come to Missouri (or another state) and legally possess firearms?

Regarding the convict serving their sentence and being released from prison, they do not get their rights back unequivocally, nor IMO, should they.
They get put on parole for several months to years, depending on the severity of their crimes. If they violate the terms of their probation, they go back to prison.
The terms of their probation are set by the Judge and vary from individual to individual.


As far as legally purchasing a firearm making a person more prone to violent behavior goes....

No, I dont feel that to be the case.

Dont let my chosen career path cause you to have a bias against me.

Let my posts and statements here, (and actions out in the real world) give you reason and basis to judge me.

I dont pretend to not be an asshole.

I'm human.

However, I'm very much pro 2A and believe very firmly in the Constitution. You're a member, search my posts and feel free to quote posts where my statements dont square with supporting the Constitution and the 2A.

I'm a big believer in the individual is responsible for their actions, not the group.

In boot camp and in the Marine Corps, there is a reason and purpose behind group punishment....

The Marine Corps, and boot camp are not the real world and things are different outside of them. What works inside the USMC doesnt always translate well to the civilian world.

You still have not explained why a person convicted of rape/murder/kidnapping/ Assault 1st should be able to possess a firearm.

 
Well you see, we are going to need some proper forms and a background check system. To ensure that not a single bad person gets their hands on a firearm, every single purchaser of a firearm shall be subject to the paperwork. The problem then arises that there are millions of firearms already out there that could be sold without the system knowing. So now we will need to have all firearms registered in case a almost-bad person decides to sell a firearm to a bad person. This will allow us to make the almost-bad person into a bad-person who no longer can buy firearms. With such a great system, any future developments on firearm restrictions will be easy to implement since there will be a list of every owner and firearm in the country. At last we will be safe from all bad people with guns.

You make a strong a valid point.

Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Govt the power to deny the right to possess a firearm to the mentally ill?

Should the mentally ill be allowed to own firearms?


I dont pretend to have all the answers, much less the right ones for any given situation.

However, IMO, there are lines that should not be crossed, and those that cross those lines should have a serious punishment that reflects the seriousness of the crime.

For the record, I believe that everyone who is not mentally ill or a violent felon should be able own a newly manufactured machine gun if they so desire.
FWIW, I've donated to Nolo's case against the NFA.


I dont expect that to change minds or win hearts....but that happens to be what I believe.

Fortunately, (or unfortunately as the case may be), I'm not God, and I'm not the POTUS, all though it's hard to argue that I would be capable of doing a worse job than the current POTUS....

How were you planning on stopping them?

Why not?  Serious question.

 

So you support criminal actions which is a clear violation of the COC so you should be banned. yet the mods won't ban you because they do not care

Not a nanny stater in the fucking slightest...

Are the mentally ill allowed to currently own firearms?
No.
It even asks on the 4473 if you have been adjudicated to be mentally ill.

Violent felons (IMO) should have their rights restricted by the Courts because they've already demonstrated they are incapable of handling themselves....should the collective be punished due to the actions of the individual?


Enforcement actions....the same as current.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Feel free to expand on this theory of yours.

 
Are we not all being punished in order to prevent felons from having firearms in the first place? FFLs, shipping regulations, background checks, etc all place more of a burden on the millions of law abiding gun owners than they do the felons.

There you go.

Who regulates?

There is no stopping.

There is only punishment after the fact.

Same as currently.

Already answered, see two posts down from your original

Excuse me? I dont know if thats how it is up in St.Louis county
But open carry without a ccw is perfectly legal in the majority of the state.

I think so. Should we continue the cycle?

Should we all be penalized because of  Seung-Hui Cho, James Eagan Holmes, or Adam Lanza?

Abortion is wrong because its murder of an unborn fetus. A fetus which has made no decisions of its own, no decisions of its own.
The death penalty is right is because it is the death of an individual who has made decisions that resulted in a crime being committed that is worthy of the death penalty?

I'm really not trying to inject abortion into this discussion, rather using it as an example of why I feel that convicted violent felons should not have their rights restored. I hope that makes sense and doesnt muddy the waters or offend anyone.

A violent felon has made his or her choice and acted accordingly. Why should a person completely unrelated have their rights impacted because of the actions of an individual?
What's the great GD saying: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes?

At what point is that no longer applicable?


My intent is enable punishment of the individual for their actions and not the collective for the actions of an individual.

My apologies if it does so.

How many people were imprisoned for life at that time?

Seriously?

I agree with the premise that if the person is released from prison, (with the caveat that it should not apply to violent felons) they should have their rights restored. But a violent felon is a different animal all together.

 
I sure hope that isn't a serious response because that sure sounds a lot like "Only the miltia, aka the National Guard, has a right to keep and bear Arms".  Now why don't you answer my question one post up from your reply.

Who pays for them to remain in jail?

Prior to the recent Constitutional Amendment, (which is being cited for this thread), local governments could restrict open carrying of firearms.
I know of many which did so.
This recent Missouri Constitutional Amendment took away the ability of local governments to restrict open carry if the subject had a valid CCW permit.

I'm not familiar with StL City's ordinances, but I'd be very surprised if they allowed OC up until this latest Constitutional Amendment.
I know of several municipalities that prohibited OC.

308 junkie is an admitted felon by committing 18 us 242 so he should not have guns irony is irony.


 

 
Looks, its pretty simple really. We have a constitutional right that says we get to own and carry Arms. Period. Furthermore, in the same document we have a clear outline of what is the proper and authorized power of the branches of the government. Of which, they are not authorized to determine who or who is not allowed to own a firearm. No matter how violent or vile some people may be, we simply cannot exclude them from rights granted to everyone via a government prohibited from restricting them. By doing so we begin to undermine the whole idea behind the very foundation of our system of government.

Regulate the militia all you like.



You still can't infringe on the right to bear arms.



 

So, feel good legislation.



 

 
No, not in the context of constitutional rights and the proper authority of the government.


Plus, if what you said is true, why don't we suspend all rights of violent felons? Every last one of them. Why not just brand a big F on their forehead and let people do as they see fit with them. Fuck hunt them for sport, they don't have any rights. They are violent felons, after all.


While I understand you don't advocate the above, but rights are not a mix and match game. Every person  gets the full package. Ill take the dangers of such a society over allowing any government to mix and match rights depending on your "class".

And if that individual has served their time/punishment and has been released from confinement?

 

Why have they not paid their debt to society as determined by the courts, and you feel that they should be punished for the rest of their lives, all the while being out on the streets in public?


You can keep saying it but it doesn't make it sound any more logical.


It sounds more like you wish to continue punishment just because you don't like them.


Releasing them will not prevent them from getting a weapon if they want one. If they are still so dangerous that their rights have to be stripped to possibly help prevent them from doing bad then, they should not be released until such time that it is believed that they are truly safe to be out and hurt the innocent.

Its a serious response.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what post you're referring to, so please quote it, and I'll respond to it.
Seriously.

And for the record, I'm not at all a believer in the whole "Only the Military, Po-Leece, or State Militia are professional enough to keep and bear arms"

I understand your suspicion, but I'm really not the droid you're looking for. Search my posting history if you have doubts.

I'm a cop, not a Saint.
I'm no better or no worse than you or anyone else on the planet.
I have to get up in the morning, put my pants on one leg at a time, brush my teeth, and go to the bathroom like everyone else.
I'm not a special snowflake.

I just have my beliefs, and you have yours.

My apologies, I thought you were from St. Louis area.
Either way, even prior to the new constitutional amendment the majority of the state was legal to open carry without a ccw.

 

The debate about the 2A being an individual right was more or less decided in Heller. To clarify, the 2A could just as easily read: "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." As such well regulated has no impact on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Which is what the left always tried to argue. Thus, when you mentioned regulated in the context of regulating the right of the people to keep and bear arms it sounded very similar. I am not accusing you of being a liberal or a gun grabber. I am just pointing out that you were using a similarly flawed argument.


As far as my interest in this discussion, I am just enjoying the debate. I am personally a very hard liner when it comes to rights. I will default to a position of a "Ill take my chances" over letting the government use a power not authorized to them to strip rights away from certain classes of people.

Interesting. Since that's a state law, what would they do about unregistered NFA items?

Ok.
I disagree with violent felons being allowed to possess firearms.

Now what?

I've explained my rationale.

I'm not God.
I'm not the POTUS.

I dont make laws.

You've got your line of thought, I've got mine.

 
Its OK, we can't all be right, all of the time. I won't hold it against you.

My like or dislike of a person does not affect how I enforce the law.
Seriously.

I'm not interested in continuing punishment because I like someone or dislike someone.

It really comes down to their actions, their decisions, and the penalties that come with that.

I enjoy owning firearms.

I dont like the idea of going to prison, so I work for a living and dont rob banks, stores etc.

I also dont rape people or murder them for their possessions.

Leaving aside the whole morality issues and belief system I have, I dont want to go to prison and lose my ability to possess firearms so I dont things which would get me imprisoned.

I work in St Louis County, but not in St Louis City.

So, yes, I'm in the St Louis area, and yes you are correct, OC was not an issue in most of the state.

However, in the "civilized" portion of the state, it was a no no in many places.


I'm being wildly sarcastic when I say "civilized".

You mean this?


If so, are you implying that "violent felons" (which is not well defined in this thread) should all get life without parole?  If so, we may simply be in disagreement, but I'd like to present a couple of points anyway.

From Missouri statutes, first-degree assault is defined as: "A person commits the offense of assault in the first degree if he or she attempts to kill or knowingly causes or attempts to cause serious physical injury to another person."

That's pretty broad to me, especially when what you're suggesting is effectively a life sentence, whether in jail (incarceration) or out (restricted rights).  Should such an act be punished?  Probably.  Should it carry a mandatory life sentence, whether by incarceration or simply restricted rights?  I would think that should be determined on a case-by-case basis.  A repetitive violent offender should not be considered the same as some guy with an otherwise clean record that got into a bar fight.

Another potential issue I'd have is that your list included "rape", but I'm not clear if that would include "statutory rape".  If so, what about this guy?  In summary, he was convicted to 10 years in Georgia as a 17-year-old for having oral sex with a 15-year-old (technically "aggravated child molestation" by Georgia state law).  Do I think he should be barred from ever having firearms again in his life due to this?  Not at all; that punishment does not fit the crime any more than the mandatory sentence did.

Additionally, I would think issuing a blanket statement that "no matter how much you repent, you can never be saved" probably encourages convicts to not repent.  Maybe most wouldn't anyway.  But there are some people out there that make bad decisions, get punished by the letter of the law, then genuinely reform.  If someone is willing to jump through hoops to be whole again, why not let them?  It would be a solid motivator for me if I was in those shoes.  I'm not saying it should necessarily be easy, but if some guy gets in a bar fight in Missouri, goes to jail, gets out, and does some lengthy probationary period (say 10 years), what's the issue?  How is this guy such a threat?



Maybe so, but I do enjoy the discourse.

I agree with your post here completely.

I've worked for the Govt for almost half my life, but I'm a big believer in the theory that more govt is not the answer.

I dont believe in the willy nilly application of the death penalty. But I do believe that violent felons who should be put to death are being released.

I dont have the answers, I wish I did.

I'm just throwing my opinions out here like everyone else.

IMO, there are some people who cannot be rehabilitated and some crimes cannot be paid for by serving time in prison.

Those are issues for the legislatures and the Judges to visit....not me.

LOL...

I appreciate that!

Good question.

Hasnt come up yet.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789,
and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of
something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was
calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight
of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd
amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the
founders wrote it.