Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGuns and where to draw the line in the sand
Many cities, every state government and the federal government have laws about individual conduct regarding firearms. DC v Heller explains that 'reasonable restrictions' in the way of gun laws are okay and not unconstitutional. The question is, "Where does that line go?"
Which guns are okay?
Who can be prohibited?
The current list:
A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
Persons who are fugitives of justicefor example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
What's wrong with the list? What can be added? What can't? In your own words...
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)I would like to see restrictions against NON violent, "one time", felons automatically relaxed after a period of time, if they have managed to stay completely out of trouble for a set length of time.
Sorta stupid, and very unfair to have a lifetime ban against owning a firearm for a single $100 bad check that bounced in 1978.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,578 posts)>> A person who has been convicted in any court of a [font color="red"]violent[/font] crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state [font color="red"]violent[/font] offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
>> Persons who are fugitives of justicefor example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant [font color="red"]for a violent offense[/font].
>> The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening [font color="red"]anyone an intimate partner or child of such partner[/font]. This does not include ex parte orders.
>> A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon[font color="red"] and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim[/font].
I'm not sure how enforceable the renouncing of citizenship thing is. I mean is the form you have to fill out and have notarized to do that? If a neighbor hears me yell, "I hate being American" and reports it (not sure to who other than Dick Cheney) does that count?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)like fascism, it will be advanced under a different name.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,578 posts)I'm not sure which of the five writers actually penned these words from the movie Jeremiah Johnson but they're still true: "...a tribe's greatness is figured on how mighty its enemies be."
I guess, the bigger the secret list of enemies, the greater you feel about your position in the society you think you lead.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)"The closer you get to Canada, the more things that will eat your horse."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,578 posts)"Been so long since I've had so much English spoke at me."
beevul
(12,194 posts)Because do lets don't pretend that there isn't already a line.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,578 posts)That's what most laws actually accomplish. Most things that actually belong the subject of a law have lines drawn before hand in the minds of those concerned. The reason for the laws is to reconcile the lines into a place accepted by everyone.
Point taken though.
There is an existing line and any changes serve generally to move the line. Although sometimes a change serves to clarify the lines actual location.