Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-12-2020, 02:35 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,931
Gun ownership by someone who committed a misdemeanor 15 years ago hardly strikes me as anything to get excited about, as far as danger to me, my loved ones, or random strangers is concerned.
  #52  
Old 01-12-2020, 02:41 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
I don't see why someone who was convicted of punching his wife should be given any more slack than someone who was convicted of punching someone in a road rage incident.

Slapping, not punching in this case. You're trying to poison the well, and I'm calling you out on it.

That being said, if you're guilty of gun violence, you should not own a gun. Taking away gun rights for slapping your wife/mate in a domestic abuse incident is just stupid.
We're only hearing the guy's side of the event, and he is going to present a version of events that flatters him.
  #53  
Old 01-12-2020, 04:06 PM
atimnie's Avatar
atimnie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 4,357
That's still no reason to take away his guns, if the incident did not involve a gun. He admits to slapping his wife, and even if it wasn't in self defense, that's still no reason to take his guns.
__________________
Wait, you can do signatures?
  #54  
Old 01-12-2020, 04:13 PM
atimnie's Avatar
atimnie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 4,357
Un-fucking-believable. The insanity of gun rights fundies has no bounds.
Asshole, have you ever heard of the concept of supporting a cause you're not a part of? I support gay rights, even though I'm straight. I support civil rights, even though I'm not black. And I support reasonable gun rights, even though I'm not a gun nut. And reasonable gun rights does not include taking away some's guns for domestic abuse incidents. It would be just as stupid to take away someone's guns for getting involved in a bar fight. There are, as has been mentioned before, shades of grey, but people on both extremes don't want to see that. They see it as black and white, with one side being right, and the other being wrong. The real world doesn't work like that.
__________________
Wait, you can do signatures?
  #55  
Old 01-12-2020, 06:05 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
That said, someone who has been convicted of a violent crime is a violent criminal. I do not agree that "[t]here are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances."

...

End of story.
So all convicted murderers are murderers and all convicted rapists are rapists and the Innocence Project is just a front for criminal organizations whose goal is to get their felons back into the public.

Moron.
  #56  
Old 01-12-2020, 06:42 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
That's still no reason to take away his guns, if the incident did not involve a gun. He admits to slapping his wife, and even if it wasn't in self defense, that's still no reason to take his guns.
The fact that someone is a violent criminal who has been convicted of assaulting someone close to him is, in fact a reason to bar him from owning guns. It has been a legal reason in the US since 1996, and is certainly a concrete, identifiable reason. You can argue that it's not a good reason, but all you've done is declare that it isn't a reason over and over, which isn't likely to change anyone's mind.

I'm a big fan of gun rights in general, but I'm perfectly fine with restrictions on gun ownership for people convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are a good number of pro-gun people who think that violence against people they live with 'doesn't count' is pretty disturbing.
  #57  
Old 01-12-2020, 07:22 PM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
The fact that someone is a violent criminal who has been convicted of assaulting someone close to him is, in fact a reason to bar him from owning guns.
So slapping someone while being assaulted in several ways and nearly having his eyes gouged out makes one a “violent criminal.”

You are aware of the post that kicked off this discussion, yes? You’re saying it was ok for her to beat the crap out of him to her hearts content? And he was obligated to sit there and take it?

‘Cos that sounds like what you’re saying.

Last edited by jz78817; 01-12-2020 at 07:23 PM.
  #58  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:23 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
So slapping someone while being assaulted in several ways and nearly having his eyes gouged out makes one a “violent criminal.”

You are aware of the post that kicked off this discussion, yes? You’re saying it was ok for her to beat the crap out of him to her hearts content? And he was obligated to sit there and take it?

‘Cos that sounds like what you’re saying.
Sssshh! We’re not allowed to discuss men’s rights here!
  #59  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:32 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
Unless I misunderstood Flyer, he/she seemed to be saying that, since officials can be corrupt and judges and juries are not infallible, it's unjust to take away someone's right to possess guns because that person was convicted of a domestic violence crime.
I guess I'd say you misunderstood, or at the very least, read too far into it. Flyer implied that people (in positions of power, I assume) can make mistakes and officials can be corrupt.

I did not suggest that it's okay to rob a liquor store. That's bullshit. I did suggest that his/her logic implied that the same standard should be applied to anyone convicted of a crime, including someone convicted of sticking up a liquor store. It's admittedly a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, but the logic is fairly clear.[/QUOTE]

I understand that you were using Flyer's logic to get from officials can be corrupt to it's okay to rob a liquor store if you're the victim of a corrupt official, but I disagree that the logic is clear. In fact, I'm again asking you to explain how you got from point A to point B. I can understand why the suggestion of reach people eating poor people's babies, but this one isn't clicking.
  #60  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:48 PM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Sssshh! We’re not allowed to discuss men’s rights here!
STFU. this has nothing to do with what I said. I'm asking certain people why- given the information we have- they feel they can declare the person in question a "violent criminal."

maybe it just makes them feel better about themselves.

Last edited by jz78817; 01-12-2020 at 09:50 PM.
  #61  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:51 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
So slapping someone while being assaulted in several ways and nearly having his eyes gouged out makes one a “violent criminal.”

You are aware of the post that kicked off this discussion, yes? You’re saying it was ok for her to beat the crap out of him to her hearts content? And he was obligated to sit there and take it?

‘Cos that sounds like what you’re saying.

We're only hearing his side of the story.
  #62  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:51 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
So slapping is cool, but punching isn't? Only domestic violence above a certain threshold (as defined by you) should count?

Bullshit.
I'm not going to defend either practice, but you really don't see a difference between this and this?

One thing of note, when I watch shows like Live PD and someone mentions that their SO hit them, one of the first questions is 'open fist of closed fist'. I don't know how much that plays into things, but it clearly makes a difference or they wouldn't be asking.

Also, I'm not suggestions slapping is okay, or that just because someone *only* slapped their SO that it's no big deal. I'm just pointing out that it's different. Like the difference between me getting angry at you and throwing a playground ball at your face (we all know that doesn't feel good) vs me getting angry and throwing a rock at your face. Neither is okay, but they are different.
  #63  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:01 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
So slapping someone while being assaulted in several ways and nearly having his eyes gouged out makes one a “violent criminal.”

You are aware of the post that kicked off this discussion, yes? You’re saying it was ok for her to beat the crap out of him to her hearts content? And he was obligated to sit there and take it?

‘Cos that sounds like what you’re saying.
Suddenly all the Reichwing dudes who like to scream, "LOCK HER UP!" on the word of a Nazi conman are passionate believers in the rights of the accused.

As long as it's a man accusing a woman.
  #64  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:06 PM
jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 12,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
We're only hearing his side of the story.
yes, and that is all the information we have. everything else is conjecture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Suddenly all the Reichwing dudes who like to scream, "LOCK HER UP!" on the word of a Nazi conman are passionate believers in the rights of the accused.

As long as it's a man accusing a woman.
none of this has anything to do with what we're discussing.

y'know what? fuck this place. if we're going to descend into the same rigid, black/white with-us-or-against-us crap the republicans and russians want us to, then you can have it. I'm out of here.
  #65  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:12 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
So slapping someone while being assaulted in several ways and nearly having his eyes gouged out makes one a “violent criminal.”

You are aware of the post that kicked off this discussion, yes? You’re saying it was ok for her to beat the crap out of him to her hearts content? And he was obligated to sit there and take it?

‘Cos that sounds like what you’re saying.
Given that the person in question never tried to correct the record, even after being arrested and charged, lends credence to the fact that he's not telling the whole story or too stupid to own firearms anyway.
  #66  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:31 PM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,276
Nm

Last edited by needscoffee; 01-12-2020 at 11:32 PM.
  #67  
Old 01-12-2020, 11:56 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
It would be just as stupid to take away someone's guns for getting involved in a bar fight.
So, not stupid at all, is what you're saying?
  #68  
Old 01-13-2020, 12:01 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I guess I'd say you misunderstood, or at the very least, read too far into it. Flyer implied that people (in positions of power, I assume) can make mistakes and officials can be corrupt.

I understand that you were using Flyer's logic to get from officials can be corrupt to it's okay to rob a liquor store if you're the victim of a corrupt official, but I disagree that the logic is clear. In fact, I'm again asking you to explain how you got from point A to point B. I can understand why the suggestion of reach people eating poor people's babies, but this one isn't clicking.
The logic is that someone was convicted of robbing a liquor store, but never actually did so. They were only convicted because corrupt officials lied/cheated/whatever.

Clearer?

Last edited by Chisquirrel; 01-13-2020 at 12:01 AM. Reason: Changed a nut
  #69  
Old 01-13-2020, 12:03 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Projammer View Post
So all convicted murderers are murderers and all convicted rapists are rapists and the Innocence Project is just a front for criminal organizations whose goal is to get their felons back into the public.

Moron.
If only there was an accepted judicial avenue to challenge convictions that are viewed as unjust. What does the Innocence Project use, jailbreaks?
  #70  
Old 01-13-2020, 12:19 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
The amendments are certainly not in my wheelhouse, but isn't this where the 5th amendment comes into play? It states that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. IOW, if I understand it correctly, the government CAN deprive you of life, liberty or property after a trial. How else could people be put in prison?
But, again, this isn't my strong suit. Also, I know there's all kinds of cases about this, I was just making the point that, as I understand it, these rights can be taken away by a court of law.
There is due process, in the initial case. Firearm prohibition is simply a guaranteed addition to whatever other punishment is decided on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Gun ownership by someone who committed a misdemeanor 15 years ago hardly strikes me as anything to get excited about, as far as danger to me, my loved ones, or random strangers is concerned.
Given that roughly 1 in 7 victims of domestic violence even report the crime, it's not unheard of for abusers to never face charges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
Un-fucking-believable. The insanity of gun rights fundies has no bounds.
Asshole, have you ever heard of the concept of supporting a cause you're not a part of? I support gay rights, even though I'm straight. I support civil rights, even though I'm not black. And I support reasonable gun rights, even though I'm not a gun nut. And reasonable gun rights does not include taking away some's guns for domestic abuse incidents. It would be just as stupid to take away someone's guns for getting involved in a bar fight. There are, as has been mentioned before, shades of grey, but people on both extremes don't want to see that. They see it as black and white, with one side being right, and the other being wrong. The real world doesn't work like that.
Thousands of women killed by their partners each year disagree with your "outrage".

Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
yes, and that is all the information we have. everything else is conjecture.
Aside from, ya know, a domestic violence conviction.
  #71  
Old 01-13-2020, 12:25 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,442
Rather than getting tied up in knots about hypotheticals about liquor stores, or accusing people of being too tied up with the letter of the law, i think the better explanation for what happened here is that you should never plead guilty to an offence without getting legal advice about all of the implications of a guilty plea, such as firearms prohibitions. Once you plead guilty and have a criminal record, that’s the significant fact. Whether you might have had a defence based on the other person's actions is irrelevant.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #72  
Old 01-13-2020, 12:27 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
There are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances, etc. The Lautenberg Amendment is a spectacular overreach and always has been. The stories are myriad about people who call the cops on their significant other only to find out that crying wolf on domestic violence just to win a fight results in prosecution, and a plea bargain in a DV case removes gun rights. It is a particular problem in the military, because that extends to service firearms, and if you can’t carry one at any time you’re out.

Each case should be judged on its own merits(or lack thereof), instead of a blanket proscription. If we take the subject of the OP at his word, it’s one of those outlying cases that perhaps ought not result in a right lost. In any case, none of that constitutes support for the (scare quotes) “violent criminals” you’re talking about, any more than supporting the legalization of marijuana means I support “drug dealers”.
This kind of thing happens to cops as well as military members.

The thing I don't like about the law is the word "misdemeanor". An act that removes someones civil rights permanently should be a felony. Lautenberg, in my opinion, was just another way to make more and more people ineligible to own firearms. Next it will be someone convicted of OWI, then shoplifting, etc..

BUT....it is the law right now even if we hate it, and FoieGrasIsEvil intentionally lied on a federal form and possessed a firearm when he had prior knowledge he was prohibited from having one. ANY conviction of DV, including Disorderly Conduct DV, does invalidate ones legal ability to own a firearm. The burden of knowing whether or not one can own one is upon each of us, not a BATFE agent knocking at our door.

All the anti-gun zealots on these boards clamoring for more and more gun laws ought to be appalled at his actions. Hell, look at all the shit I got for posting I'd more than likely not give a fellow officer a citation for a minor traffic offense. This is 2 felonies were talking about (actually 4 as he could be charged both state and federally).

Then, to be so stupid as to post this stuff online. Duh!

I used to like reading some of FoieGrasIsEvil posts. But I've completely lost respect for them. And for any gun control advocate that isn't giving him grief!

Last edited by pkbites; 01-13-2020 at 12:28 AM.
  #73  
Old 01-13-2020, 01:16 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Given that the person in question never tried to correct the record, even after being arrested and charged, lends credence to the fact that he's not telling the whole story or too stupid to own firearms anyway.
People take the fall for things all the time just to get them done and over with. Often people will admit to something (or not defend themselves against a charge) because they're under the impression that taking their (or, rather not their) lumps means the whole thing is over today instead of spending months in court and who knows how much in legal fees.
As for buying the gun(s), I can't speak to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
The logic is that someone was convicted of robbing a liquor store, but never actually did so. They were only convicted because corrupt officials lied/cheated/whatever.

Clearer?
Yes, that does make more sense, but it's backwards. What you're saying, if I'm reading it right is that someone was wrongfully convicted (or even faced fabricated charges) for robbing a liquor store that they never robbed, by a corrupt official. Saintly Loser said "it's okay to rob a liquor store if you're the victim of corrupt officials.", which, the way I'm reading it, is saying if you're the victim of a corrupt official, you can then go rob a liquor store. As I stated earlier, I simply can't follow the logic on that.

Regardless of the corrupt official part, in your case, the suspect did not rob a liquor store, in SL's hypothetical, they did. In either case, we're still butting up against the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. Both issues have to be dealt with separately. You can't commit a crime because a crime was committed against you (moreso when it involves an uninvolved 3rd party).
  #74  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:21 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
Yes, that does make more sense, but it's backwards. What you're saying, if I'm reading it right is that someone was wrongfully convicted (or even faced fabricated charges) for robbing a liquor store that they never robbed, by a corrupt official. Saintly Loser said "it's okay to rob a liquor store if you're the victim of corrupt officials.", which, the way I'm reading it, is saying if you're the victim of a corrupt official, you can then go rob a liquor store. As I stated earlier, I simply can't follow the logic on that.

Regardless of the corrupt official part, in your case, the suspect did not rob a liquor store, in SL's hypothetical, they did. In either case, we're still butting up against the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. Both issues have to be dealt with separately. You can't commit a crime because a crime was committed against you (moreso when it involves an uninvolved 3rd party).
He never said that. His/her quote:

Quote:
Of course not. But by that logic, well, maybe that dude convicted of sticking up the liquor store was the victim of corrupt officials -- we should be fine with letting him have a carry permit, right?
In SaintlyLoser's hypothetical, someone has been CONVICTED of robbing a liquor store. Never was it stated that the criminal ACTUALLY robbed a liquor store. You've read FAR more into it than the original statement.

Last edited by Chisquirrel; 01-13-2020 at 02:22 AM. Reason: Added a nut, changed another one
  #75  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:27 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
People take the fall for things all the time just to get them done and over with. Often people will admit to something (or not defend themselves against a charge) because they're under the impression that taking their (or, rather not their) lumps means the whole thing is over today instead of spending months in court and who knows how much in legal fees.
As for buying the gun(s), I can't speak to that.
And as it stands, he's been convicted of domestic violence, no matter what his reasons for accepting that. Full stop. That is the only certain fact we know about the situation.

Do people plead down and give up for mundane shit? Absolutely. That doesn't mean we don't let them off with only part of their punishment.

Last edited by Chisquirrel; 01-13-2020 at 02:27 AM. Reason: Fucking nuts, always popping up where they're unwanted
  #76  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:38 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
The thing I don't like about the law is the word "misdemeanor". An act that removes someones civil rights permanently should be a felony. Lautenberg, in my opinion, was just another way to make more and more people ineligible to own firearms. Next it will be someone convicted of OWI, then shoplifting, etc..
What's the appreciable difference in a crime that results in a 11 month sentence and a 12 month one, besides the label given to it? How about all domestic violence crimes are automatically felonies, full stop? Would that assuage your oh-so-serious concern?

Given that Lautenberg has been law for over 20 years, and we haven't even started to slide down that slippery slope, I hope you didn't buy stock in sleds.

Quote:
All the anti-gun zealots on these boards clamoring for more and more gun laws ought to be appalled at his actions. Hell, look at all the shit I got for posting I'd more than likely not give a fellow officer a citation for a minor traffic offense. This is 2 felonies were talking about (actually 4 as he could be charged both state and federally).
"All these people that were upset that I pick and choose which laws can be broken because they're my friends should be OUTRAGED because REASONS."

Quote:
I used to like reading some of FoieGrasIsEvil posts. But I've completely lost respect for them. And for any gun control advocate that isn't giving him grief!
What should we do in MPSIMS? Rage and call him names and all take warnings for your righteous indignation? He knows he's a fucking idiot, what he did was absolutely wrong, and he barely escaped a much harsher situation. We COULD pit him for it, but I guess your unease isn't enough for you to do it yourself, only for you to chide and chastise the rest of us.
  #77  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:50 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
I see. So if my wife attacks me and I defend myself by punching her she is a victim of domestic violence and as an offender I lose my rights. No nuance, no shades of gray whatsoever, right?
That doesn’t sound like something MsRobyn would do in the first place...
  #78  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:55 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,117
NM

Last edited by pkbites; 01-13-2020 at 02:57 AM.
  #79  
Old 01-13-2020, 03:54 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
STFU. this has nothing to do with what I said. I'm asking certain people why- given the information we have- they feel they can declare the person in question a "violent criminal."

maybe it just makes them feel better about themselves.
I think it’d be naive to discount the possibility that some people feel they can declare it because FGE is a man and he hit a woman, and that, to them, no other information is relevant. It’s hardly an uncommon stance in wider society.
  #80  
Old 01-13-2020, 05:27 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
But I've completely lost respect for them. And for any gun control advocate that isn't giving him grief!
Gun control advocates can have nuanced views might not map with what you expect.
  #81  
Old 01-13-2020, 06:35 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Given that roughly 1 in 7 victims of domestic violence even report the crime, it's not unheard of for abusers to never face charges.
Which has fuck all to do with the danger caused by someone who was convicted of a misdemeanor 15 years ago.
  #82  
Old 01-13-2020, 07:29 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
All the anti-gun zealots on these boards clamoring for more and more gun laws ought to be appalled at his actions.
I figure laws need to work despite people incorrectly filling out forms. The ATF isn't Blanche DuBois, they shouldn't depend on the kindness of strangers, they should have been able to reject this purchase at the dealer rather than have to send agents to some dude's home.

FGIE has made mistakes in the past, marrying a violently crazy person, after she showed her self to be violent, and drinking too often and too much resulting in a recent DUI. This is exactly the sort of person, generally speaking, who shouldn't be buying guns as toys, who really shouldn't have weapons this powerful knocking around the home.
  #83  
Old 01-13-2020, 07:42 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I figure laws need to work despite people incorrectly filling out forms. The ATF isn't Blanche DuBois, they shouldn't depend on the kindness of strangers, they should have been able to reject this purchase at the dealer rather than have to send agents to some dude's home.
I don't know for sure what state FGIE is in or what they're doing for backgrounds. I'm in Wisconsin and I rarely have any problems with the system. We no longer have waiting periods so the check is done right then and there, cash and carry. We used to do it after the 48 hour wait. There are stipulations regarding what happens when there is a sticking point during the background. I simply will not complete the sale if the background doesn't come back. There is a liability attached and the integrity of my business is at stake.

Not that I believe background checks prevent anyone from getting their hands on a firearm. As we've see they clearly don't.
  #84  
Old 01-13-2020, 11:36 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Which has fuck all to do with the danger caused by someone who was convicted of a misdemeanor 15 years ago.
Not applicable to FGE, but it's fairly obvious that someone could be abusing their SO those entire fifteen years, but never be charged or convicted, even so long after their initial conviction.
  #85  
Old 01-13-2020, 12:30 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Not applicable to FGE, but it's fairly obvious that someone could be abusing their SO those entire fifteen years, but never be charged or convicted, even so long after their initial conviction.
This is true for every human in a position to be abusing anyone and is largely irrelevant when it comes to setting policy.

Last edited by Ruken; 01-13-2020 at 12:33 PM.
  #86  
Old 01-13-2020, 01:08 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
What gets me is how often people in these discussions talk about DV convictions and police being called for an 'argument' like it's something completely ordinary that just happens. Maybe my circle of friends and colleagues is somehow unique, but arguments that escalate to the point that cops show up to calm things down are really, really out of the ordinary in my experience, and I think that people who are routinely involved in violent altercations that need police intervention very likely are people who should not be allowed to possess firearms. This isn't a case of something absurdly minor like 'oh, he painted his car the wrong color and got a ticket', this is a case of someone engaging in violence with their intimate partner and being convicted of it.
I totally agree with this. I am also at a loss as to how such a situation is somehow just a normal thing that happens.


Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
That being said, if you're guilty of gun violence, you should not own a gun.
Whoa whoa whoa! There's a lot of nuance in what is considered gun violence. These can be very complicated cases. You know, a lot of ins, lot of outs, lot of what-have-you's. And a lot of strands to keep in my head, man. Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, limber.
  #87  
Old 01-13-2020, 03:35 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
This is true for every human in a position to be abusing anyone and is largely irrelevant when it comes to setting policy.
Except, you know, the conviction. Rare is the abuser that only does it once.

I would wager that a complete gun ban and confiscation, with severe penalties for possession, would virtually eliminate domestic violence gun deaths. However, that would take the rights away from far more people than would be acceptable, so a line must be drawn elsewhere. I'm ok with drawing it at someone who has shown, as stated by the court system, a propensity for physical violence against their spouse or children, especially considering the gross under-reporting of the crime.
  #88  
Old 01-13-2020, 05:56 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Except, you know, the conviction. Rare is the abuser that only does it once.

I would wager that a complete gun ban and confiscation, with severe penalties for possession, would virtually eliminate domestic violence gun deaths. However, that would take the rights away from far more people than would be acceptable, so a line must be drawn elsewhere. I'm ok with drawing it at someone who has shown, as stated by the court system, a propensity for physical violence against their spouse or children, especially considering the gross under-reporting of the crime.
And I'm ok with letting people rejoin society after their sentences/probation are up. A lot of people aren't; see politicians in FL who want to reduce the black vote.
  #89  
Old 01-13-2020, 11:07 PM
scabpicker's Avatar
scabpicker is offline
Yo soy pinche idiota
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Funkytown (Fort Worth)
Posts: 4,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
FGIE has made mistakes in the past, marrying a violently crazy person, after she showed her self to be violent, and drinking too often and too much resulting in a recent DUI. This is exactly the sort of person, generally speaking, who shouldn't be buying guns as toys, who really shouldn't have weapons this powerful knocking around the home.
Umm, the weapon in question is a .22LR, pretty much the second least powerful firearm commonly available (.22 short is less dangerous and less common). My .177 air rifle is about as dangerous (probably more dangerous to a squirrel than a .22LR pistol), and air rifles in .22 .32 .38 and .45 are available without a background check. The last 3 are all more dangerous on a per-shot basis than a .22LR pistol, and repeaters can be bought of each.

I certainly don't think that the ability to own a firearm should necessarily be a bright line, and persons who do have it taken away should have a method of having it restored after a long period of no other instances of the sort of crime that would make possession of them suspect, which is available. I've had friends and family convicted of many crimes ranging from writing bad checks to bank robbery. Even when they were absolutely guilty of the crimes, I am glad they had routes to being forgiven and restoring most, if not all, of their rights. If you're not going to eventually forgive, why not just kill those who have offended you?

I've also had a lifelong friend and her daughter murdered by the friend's boyfriend. No firearm was used, and most people can kill you without one if killing you is important to them. So, don't go pretending that I'm somehow untouched by the subject at hand. After pleading guilty, he got life (I assume double), but if I got to kill him I'd use a machete rather than a gun, noose, etc. So, I'm actually thankful that Texas is in control of his fate and not I. Vengeance isn't the point, after all. Similarly, if a person guilty of a violent crime is deemed worthy of the state to have the ability to possess a firearm again, I would be fine with it. As has been noted in this thread, the government tends to be overzealous in its convictions wherever possible. When it draws the punishments for those back, it's normally for good reason.
  #90  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:04 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
And I'm ok with letting people rejoin society after their sentences/probation are up. A lot of people aren't; see politicians in FL who want to reduce the black vote.
And I'm ok with violent assholes not being allowed guns. Especially given that there is an accepted avenue for them to appeal said decisions even after the sentence is finished.
  #91  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:27 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
It really isn’t too much to ask that every case be judged based on its own circumstances. The judge has everything he needs to do just that. If he decides that the person's gun rights are forfeit, fine. But the Lautenberg Amendment does away with any discretion whatsoever.
It is when what you want judged is whether or not the person was wrongly convicted because the victim "cried wolf." The judge can't do that. As far as the court is concerned, the guy is guilty unless there is an appeal that overturns the verdict.

You raised the possibility of edge cases where a judge might decide that a violent criminal maybe shouldn't have their gun rights removed. But you have not successfully argued that such edge cases exist. You have alleged exactly one type of edge case--that of someone being falsely convicted--but that one is unworkable.

So, I'm amenable to the idea that there are in fact myriad edge cases. However, you need to make a successful argument for them. Heck, I'd be okay if you said "myriad" was hyperbole in the moment and could only come up with some very unlikely situations.

It's just the one you brought up doesn't work.

Last edited by BigT; 01-14-2020 at 05:28 AM.
  #92  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF View Post
Do we really have to go down that road? Every right has limits, and the Second Amendment is no exception.
I don't understand where all this hatred of the U.S. Constitution comes from.

Consider the Fifth Amendment with its "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." It doesn't say "unless some libtard judge says you must testify." It doesn't say "unless you have secret knowledge of who killed Vince Foster." The right is unequivocal. It even applies to criminals — especially to criminals.

Same for the Holy Second Amendment. It applied to ALL white men (maybe free black men also — history buffs?) I don't care what illegal restrictions might have been imposed when the libtards still had control of Scotus. Criminals — especially violent criminalsneed their guns more than most of us; where, pray-tell, are they excluded in the Founding Fathers' sacred text?

Suppose you're locked in a store by a Muslim terrorist, and two of your fellow hostages have guns: one a sissy liberal art teacher, and the other a big strong bank robber with several notches on his gun. Which gun-man are you going to look to to save the day?

Stop reading to avoid a Spoiler, but didn't Leonardo recently use a flame-thrower to save himself from the Manson family killers? If the America-hating libtards had their way he would have had to defend himself with a sling-shot.

#MakeAmericansGunslingersAgain

Last edited by septimus; 01-14-2020 at 08:54 AM.
  #93  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:05 AM
atimnie's Avatar
atimnie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 4,357
Can we dispense with this "libtard" bullshit? Whatever points you may have will be ignored if you come across as a right wing idiot. I know this is the pit, but if you don't want to be labeled a "cuntservative", then lay off the "libtard" shit.
__________________
Wait, you can do signatures?
  #94  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:42 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,122
Why am I getting the feeling that we’ve moved from the gun control law to Poe’s Law?
  #95  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:15 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Stop reading to avoid a Spoiler, but didn't Leonardo recently use a flame-thrower to save himself from the Manson family killers? If the America-hating libtards had their way he would have had to defend himself with a sling-shot.
That's a good point. If that hippie hadn't been set ablaze, Sharon Tate might be dead today. This is the best argument for a literal reading of the Second Amendment I have seen in some time, and I'll have to consider what this means for my position on these issues.
  #96  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:56 PM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 11,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Suppose you're locked in a store by a Muslim terrorist, and two of your fellow hostages have guns: one a sissy liberal art teacher, and the other a big strong bank robber with several notches on his gun. Which gun-man are you going to look to to save the day?
So a felon committing another felony just by having a a gun who probably has several notches in his belt because he 'sprays & prays' & doesn't know how to hit his target vs. a law-abiding citizen who probably goes to the range to practice on a regular basis because he is legally allowed to.

Speaking of 'sprays & prays' you forgot to mention that the "sissy liberal art teacher" is an atheist because we know that believing in Jesus more than makes up for all the bad our felon has done, right?
  #97  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:45 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
Speaking of 'sprays & prays' you forgot to mention that the "sissy liberal art teacher" is an atheist because we know that believing in Jesus more than makes up for all the bad our felon has done, right?
Thank you. I'm glad someone agrees with me. It's hard being a God-fearing American Patriot in this liberal hive.
  #98  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:50 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thank you. I'm glad someone agrees with me. It's hard being a God-fearing American Patriot in this liberal hive.
I see no reason for Americans to fear God, when we are just as well armed.
  #99  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:50 PM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
We're only hearing the guy's side of the event, and he is going to present a version of events that flatters him.
Well yeah? She's not in here to tell her side, so all we can do is take him at his word. That's typically the case in an online forum. If it somehow came out that she didn't attack him, he threatened to shoot her, etc etc, not a single person here would argue against him having his gun rights taken away.
  #100  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:08 PM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Rather than getting tied up in knots about hypotheticals about liquor stores, or accusing people of being too tied up with the letter of the law, i think the better explanation for what happened here is that you should never plead guilty to an offence without getting legal advice about all of the implications of a guilty plea, such as firearms prohibitions. Once you plead guilty and have a criminal record, that’s the significant fact. Whether you might have had a defence based on the other person's actions is irrelevant.
I feel that's the right take-away. While I'm not saying the dude should have lied about anything but, assuming everything played out the way he says, he should NOT have trusted his wife to admit to attacking him, first. Maybe he did say that and the cops dismissed it, in which case, he didn't really have much of a chance if they already chose who to believe. If he didn't seek any sort of council at all, that was definitely a huge mistake on his part.

Always lawyer up, kiddos.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017