Who should be banned from firearm ownership?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Poll question: Who should be banned from firearm ownership?

The choices:

Currently, in most jurisdictions, convicted felons & mental incompetents are prohibited from owning firearms.

Mental incompetent restrictions are common sense. Perhaps it would be better to restrict ALL violent criminals; violent felons, in particular, and those convicted of violent misdemeanors as well.

Or maybe all felons, anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor, anyone charged with a violent crime who has not yet been found not guilty, anyone on the "terror list" and mental incompetents should all be restricted.

Or no restrictions.

[one-eyed fat man]

1. Your list is too short

Currently prohibited persons as defined under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, Para 922 section D, items (1) thru (9)

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien -

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)

(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and

(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner
or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence.

[ananda]

2. Everyone.

Period.

[rrneck]

5. Your position helped prompt this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=475277&mesg_id=475277

[SteveM]

22. Damn! Beat me to it...

I posted the one by One_________ who seemed to be demanding that gun-controller/prohibitionists should be rewarded for shitting on the carpet; you know, "hiding" the forum in a proposed DU-3 tier.

[rrneck]

27. Yep. They always forget

that when you put your head in the sand your ass is up in the air.

[oneshooter]

8. Including Law Enforcement? How would you bring this utopia about? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Com'on!

You've heard of magic, haven't you?

[iverglas]

46. do "law enforcement" OWN their firearms?

No, I didn't think so.

Drag your smelly herrings elsewhere, 'k?

You may have a case to make against the position taken by the poster in question.

Misrepresenting it doesn't help your case.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. LEOs...

...in that way are like some criminals. They 'posses' firearms which they don't technically 'own'.


ETA: Besides, the question was about law enforcement not law enforcement OFFICERS. I guess in some places the city/county may 'own' the service weapons but in most they are owned by the department (aka "law enforcement").

[pneutin]

54. Actually, yes they do

Many agencies/departments allow officers to carry personally owned firearms--rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

You should stop making yourself look like a fool. Not saying you are a fool, but you keep making yourself look like a fool when you don't know what you're talking about. Which is often.

[iverglas]

75. mirror, mirror on the wall

Many agencies/departments allow officers to carry personally owned firearms--rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

My goodness, some people do think they're clever.

Even when they have not a shred of foundation for that belief, having said nothing remotely relevant to anything.

If said agencies/departments ceased to allow officers to carry personally owned firearms, would said officers have no firearms?

The question was: Who should be banned from firearm ownership?

An answer was: Everyone.

A response to that was: Including Law Enforcement? How would you bring this utopia about?

Banning "law enforcement" from owning firearms would have zero effect on their having firearms in the course of performing their duties. What "utopia" could the question possibly have referred to? A utopia in which police owned no firearms personally and carried employer-owned firearms while on duty? Is that really what the question was meant to mean? I think not.

If you want to aim your mirror at the person who asked "Including Law Enforcement?", you can show them what you see when you look in it yourself. Someone trying too hard to look clever, and failing rather spectacularly.

[gejohnston]

78. In the small town I grew up in

both my brothers had to buy their own. My one brother was only 19, so my mom had to fill out the 4473.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeepnstein]

64. I own mine.

I've carried the same .45 for nearly 22 years now and I had to buy it on my own. Same for my shotgun and my backup gun. I also have to pay for my Taser cartridges for training. Oh, and uniforms, armor, leather gear, magazines, ammo, all of it out of my own pocket.

[iverglas]

76. forgive me

I do occasionally forget what I'm dealing with.

Do you folks down there really have no unions?

But really. Seriously. You are telling me that you are "law enforcement" and you pay for the ammunition you carry/use in the course of your employment? What backwoods of where are we talking about?

:eyes: ... whether so or not so.

[jeepnstein]

77. Backwoods?

No, I belong to a fairly modern department with good resources.

But it's not at all uncommon for police officers to own their weapons. There's nothing wrong with that. I know FBI agents who own their own firearms. It's even the practice of the NYPD to have their officers buy weapons unless that's been changed recently. Last I heard they could choose one of three models with a 12 pound trigger. Considering who runs the city these days nothing would surprise me.

Seeing as how you aren't a U.S. citizen I can see where this might strike you as odd. It's perfectly normal in the U.S. for someone in law enforcement to purchase their own duty weapon.

[oneshooter]

79. Most all of the local PD's and county mounty's in Texas supply their own side arms

They have to be acceptable to the department regs as to caliber. But it's their personal choice as to revolver or semi-auto. The only ones who don't are the DPS and the Rangers. They work for the State of Texas and are currently issued a SIG in 357SIG. A excellent cartridge that is issued with the 125gr JSP bullet.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

80. zippedidoodah

None of all of which has anything to do with the subject: the allegation that advocating that everyone be banned from owning firearms would result in a firearm-less police force.

The idea of allowing let alone requiring members of police services to carry and use their own firearms on duty (and yes, I knew it was allowed in US jurisdictions) is just too bizarre for an ordinary person in an ordinary place to conceive of. Sorry.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. The sights one sees...

...when one lacks an inventory of straws to offer (at a small markup) to those grasping hands.

:rofl:

[jeepnstein]

83. You asked.

Of course since you didn't get the answer you demanded you are reacting angrily. Not my fault. You're wrong again and you know it.

[iverglas]

84. yes, it is so very very wrong of me

not to play or fall for stupid word games.

I'll try to do better next time.

Charades, anyone?

[SteveM]

20. Some have excused this forum as "extreme" and "fringe"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4859

Would you be an "extremist," or of the "fringe?" Should this forum be moved because of your "extremism" or "fringe-ness?"

[Lurks Often]

32. It seems that State Legislatures across the country

and the Supreme Court and the majority of Americans disagree with you.

[iverglas]

50. no it doesn't

It seems that a bare majority of the Supreme Court, consisting of the right-wing trash appointed by its fellow right-wing trash, agree.

And it seems that right-wing politicians who were either installed by the gun lobby and its multi-million-deep pockets and its lying propaganda, or pandering politicians afraid of the gun lobby and its deluded/true believer followers, are doing the bidding of the gun lobby.

I hope that helped.

[Callisto32]

38. Wow.

We have this problem in the U.S. where we don't know who is armed and who is not, with one important exception: the government agencies. Since they should have records of all their weapons I suggest we begin there and disarm all the government bureaucrats first. How about it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Works for me. :) n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. Wow - that was insightful...

...care to explain why? By "everyone, period", do you mean government as well?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

73. So basically...

...anyone who thinks differently than you do?

Being a racist, a fascist or a bigot is not illegal. It is stupid, yes, but one is free to believe as he sees fit. Neither you nor anyone else has a right to tell someone what they must believe.

[SlipperySlope]

3. No to people on the "terror list".

There are no checks and balances to having your name on the list.

There is no judicial oversight of use of the list.

There is no formal judicial appeal process to getting your name off the list.

I do not support violating someone's fundamental human rights so cavalierly.

[Firebrand Gary]

4. All persons who listen to Glen Beckkk or Grand Wizard Limbaugh

[oneshooter]

7. So you would give up the First Amendment? Or are you such a

hypocrite as to not allow others to speak, just because you do not like what they say?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Firebrand Gary]

37. That was satire, but thanks for showing who you are.

[oneshooter]

42. I am a supporter of ALL of our rights. You on the other hand would use the power of the law

the stifle and /or remove the rights of those who disagree with you. I personally don't believe what you said, but I will defend your right to say it.
As apparently you won't.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Firebrand Gary]

45. You need to get a grip, IT WAS A JOKE!

Satire? You've heard of it I'm sure?

Good lord, people. DU is now apparently a forum for political correctness only, how things have changed.

[iverglas]

47. ya don't joke about guns and their owners in the Guns forum

New here? ;)



edit

or about the right-wing mouthpieces who say what gun militants love to hear ...

[Euromutt]

56. Apologies; it's just Poe's Law in action

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Also, in this particular sub-forum, senses of humor tend to get a bit frayed due to reading the same "humorous" remarks a few times too often, and because the line between satire and straw man is a thin one indeed.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

10. It's sad to see so many DUers supporting the Bush-era "terror suspect" list

Or to put it another way, sad to see so many DUers supporting the curtailment of liberty based on mere suspicion of some kind of criminal activity. I think you should at least have an indictment before taking away someone's civil rights.

[spin]

13. +1000 (n/t)

[Hoopla Phil]

11. I'm going with choice one but believe it is too broad. The felons barred should

only be those convicted of a violent felony. There are WAY too many felonies out there that should not bar someone from their 2A rights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Wouldn't that...

...put you in the choice 2 category?

[Hoopla Phil]

16. No, choice two is all violent criminal that would include misdemeanors.

A common fist fight that is not a felony should not bar someone from their 2A rights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. Question:

Is criminal trespass with a knife at 3 AM a felony?

[Hoopla Phil]

19. I don't know, laws vary greatly state to state. Example, in Texas you can be charged with a felony

for promoting the use of, or owning more than six dildos?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. Felonies...

...include:
...embezzlement, keeping found property without making a reasonable attempt to find its rightful owner, obtaining the services of another person or telecommunication services by fraud, shoplifting, unauthorized access to credit cards, and writing bad checks.

None of these are wholesome activities but none would put me in fear of my safety. Hearing about someone doing time on a dildo rap would may give me a hernia from hysterics. :)

[Hoopla Phil]

31. I know it sounds funny but it has happened in Texas.

I'm sure you've heard of the "ladies parties" that have all the sex stuff for sale. Anyhow, some of them have been prosecuted under that stupid statute. I don't think anyone ever served time, just probation, but some did get a felony rap over it. Now they get around the law by displaying a poster that something to the affect of "for novelty use only". That way there is no "sexual intent" that can be proved.

[SteveM]

24. I agree.

[PavePusher]

26. Especially since that is how some people have advocated here....

that we should be restricted to, in our self-defense.

[PavePusher]

25. +1 n/t

[petronius]

14. I think I'm closest to post 1, but I'd limit it to violent felonies, add lower-level DV,

and put a time-limit on the ban (although I'd let judges impose longer restrictions during sentencing if it was justified). Also those subject to restraining orders. People that I'd drop from the current exclusion list are aliens (authorized or not), citizenship renouncers, dishonorable dischargees, drug users, and people on the watch lists...

[Euromutt]

55. Point of order re: dishonorable discharges

Not all discharges that are not honorable are automatically dishonorable; there are a few categories in between. Essentially, you can only get a dishonorable discharge after being found guilty by a court martial of an offense that, in civilian life, would be a felony.

[petronius]

60. Interesting, thanks - I did wonder a bit about what it took to get a DD

So it would be possible to have a DD for what would be a felony outside the military, but to not have a felony criminal record that would otherwise trigger denial? In that case, it does make sense to include that item in the restricted list.

If it was all up to me, then, I'd still want the ban to be limited to those DDs corresponding to a violent felony, and with a time limit - maintaining consistency between in- and out-of-the-military offenses...

[gejohnston]

61. court Martials are federal courts

All of the ones I have seen (only after being convicted in a general court martial, and reviewed under an automatic appeals process) are felonies on the outside.

[petronius]

63. So would a person receiving a dishonorable discharge automatically have a criminal record,

that would show up if their name was queried by law enforcement, or NICS, in the same way a person convicted in a civilian court would? If that's the case, the DD exclusion seems redundant...

[gejohnston]

66. I would think so

Don't see why not. I am guessing it might be just a left over from pre UCMJ days when it was the Articles of War (before the early 1950s). Under the Articles of War, court martials were more like kangaroo courts. On the other hand, there may be no thought out reason. It always seemed redundant to me too.

[oneshooter]

72. Receiving a DH or OTH discharge means that you loose

ALL of your military benefits, including medical and the right to be buried in a National Cemetery. It becomes a part of your permanent record and can not be removed.
Very serious stuff, as possible employers can see it, and act accordingly.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

62. " Other than Honorable discharge"

Punitive Discharges. Punitive discharges are authorized punishments of courts-martial and can only be awarded as an approved court-martial sentence pursuant to a conviction for a violation of the UCMJ. There are two types of punitive discharges: Dishonorable Discharge (DD) -- which can only be adjudged by a general court-martial and is a separation under dishonorable conditions; and Bad-Conduct Discharge (BCD) -- which can be adjudged by either a general court-martial or a special court-martial and is a separation under conditions other than honorable.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aadischarge1.htm

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[LiberalFighter]

15. Republicans and Teabaggers

[Katya Mullethov]

18. That would fall under "those people"

A subliminally predominant and conspicuously absent category .

[oneshooter]

28. Letting your politics get in the way of your rights, aint ya. n/t

[SteveM]

21. "Terror suspects:" My, how we forget GWB when guns are involved.

Some of those checking the "terror suspect" category would do well to review the 5th Amendment.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. And the 14th for that matter. n/t

[SteveM]

33. Yeah, but I like to give 'em a little time to digest the 2nd and 5th first. nt

[ObamaFTW2012]

34. I feel that

those who should be banned are as follows:

1) convicted felons (with a reinstatement process available through the courts)

2) people ADJUDICATED mentally ill

3) known substance abusers (as in, convicted of a drug-related or alcohol-related crime)

4) foreign nationals (maybe an exception available for diplomats and private collectors)

5) those who renounce their U.S. citizenship

[benEzra]

40. Thoughts...

I don't think cannabis use by an otherwise qualified individual should disqualify someone. Carrying while stoned would obviously be restricted just like carrying while drinking is, but we don't bar gun ownership by people who drink a glass of wine a few times a week, and I think objectively cannabis should be treated the same way.

I also know foreign nationals with guns in their homes (Brits and Canadians, with green cards), and I think revoking their right to own a gun simply because of their resident alien status would constitute distilled xenophobia. There is no objective reason why foreign nationals should be treated differently on thus issue, IMO.

[ObamaFTW2012]

44. When I think about it some more

I must concede. I should have made clear my position on drug users (I support legalizing marijuana), and I agree fully on not using while carrying. I see what you're saying re: foreign nationals and I have no logical argument to reply with.

[iverglas]

48. "those who renounce their U.S. citizenship"

Wtf does that have to do with anything?

That old civil death again, I guess. Renouncers and foreigners, non-persons.

Do you actually know anything about renunciation of citizenship?

For starters, it can't be done within the country. Once it's done outside the country, the US will usually, by some bilateral agreement or other, take return delivery of an individual who has not acquired another citizenship. Presumably the person will not have the benefits of citizenship at that point, and will live in some legal limbo within the US, in theory not even able to work.

Did you know that the US is the only, uh, civilized country in the world that allows its citizens to renounce citizenship if doing so leaves them stateless?

Yuppers, it's one of those basic human rights ... unlike food, housing, healt care ...

Does the rest of the world a real favour too. Stateless ex-USAmericans wandering the globe. And it does happen.

[RSillsbee]

36. Other

Jpak, Iverglass, Hoyt, Safe in Ohio, King Mike,

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. heh

I feel safer already. ;)

[RSillsbee]

43. Seriously

I think there is a certain level of crime that should merit revocation of RKBA for life; Treason, Murder, Rape, Shilling for the U.N., or any other capital crime.
After that any crime that while not a capital offense the defendant gets a life sentence for. Those would be the only level of crime that I could see permanent revocation for.
For any other crime say a 10 year restriction after release that is lifted if you have a clean record for that time.
If you are adjudicated mentally incompetent you lose your RKBA until you are adjudicated competent.

[one-eyed fat man]

58. Restoration of gun rights

Short of a Presidential pardon, is there any other way to regain the right to own a gun?

In theory, you can make application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) to request restoration of your gun rights. The application is supposedly granted if "it is established . . . that the circumstances . . . and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest."

The problem is that since October 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from spending any money to handle such applications. If you submit the application, ATF will not act on it. They will simply return it with an explanation that they cannot process it, due to a lack of available funds. Someone who went through this procedure sued in federal court, arguing that the court should bypass Congress in order to make available a procedure to restore the right to own a gun. The Supreme Court rejected the argument in United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002).

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. given those choices, I finally went with no restrictions --

I think we must be very careful in the wording of how and why one should lose their individaul rights in this country.

the word Felon is too broad a term.

Also, we must be careful in defining mental illness and incompetency.

[DWC]

53. Play on words - Not Funny

Those with DUIs are not restricted from owning a motor vehicle; they are restricted from driving a motor vehicle.

If one who owns several guns is charged with a violent felony, must that person sell the guns and not buy any more until the charges are dropped?

There is no reasonable response listed in this pseudo-poll.

Semper Fi

[one-eyed fat man]

57. 18 U.S.C. §922(n).

Where a person is under indictment for a felony - even before they are convicted - it is unlawful to acquire firearms.

(n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

This does not reach possession of currently owned firearms, only receipt of new ones. United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329 (6th Cir. 1973).

Upon conviction felons are required to dispose of their firearms.....EXCEPT for one teeny weeny loophole. If you need more proof that gun control laws are written by elitist bastards and promoted by their shills and dupes.

The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those "pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices," per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).

http://www.williamslawonline.com/Press-Room/Top-10-Things-Know-About-Federal-Gun-Law.shtml

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

65. Anyone exhibiting a high degree of "excitement" when viewing various examples of "assault" weapons.

And, no, I'm not going to waste my time "defining" a friggin "assault" weapon.

[gejohnston]

67. I don't know about excitement but

my son was disappointed that this one was exported only to Canada for civilian sales. Does that count? Have not been able to find why.

http://www.canadaammo.com/product.php?productid=12&cat=0&page=1

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

71. Probably the BATFE declaring them to have "no sporting purpose".

[oneshooter]

69. Mainly because you don't know enough about the subject to be able

to describe anything about a weapon. However this has not prevented you from making a total asswipe of yourself with your posting of foolish ideas.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. Hey!

I could make some money if I could patent an "excitement" meter. ;)