I was going to put this in IMHO, but changed my mind due to content.
What do you think of this article?
About time, or slippery slope.
I, a gun owner, think it’s a good thing, as long as the authorities don’t abuse it.
Peace,
mangeorge
Life NRA member here: I think this sounds GREAT. This is EXACTLY what the NRA is always saying - enforce the rules you have before you add more to the books.
I understand I’m in the minority here, but I think any law that prohibits a citizen - who is not in jail or on probation – from keeping and bearing arms is wrong. This means I have no problem with felons owning a firearm as long as they’re not in jail and not on probation. IMO if they paid their dues to society then all of their inalienable rights should be restored.
About freaking time! Count me with Algher.
See, now if this is the only reason for registration lists, then I’m all for it. If it’s this, then I have a real problem with it.
I didn’t see where registration was involved. It seemed they were going after people brandishing guns.
But I will admit to skimming.
I remember seeing pictures of rusty guns supposedly confiscated by authorities then improperly stored. But I never saw any cites for that either.
This book talks all about what happened in New Orleans.
The article I linked to talked about armed looters, which is exactly the time and place when I would be interested in being able to defend myself, when the police simply cannot respond even if I could contact them.
My point is simply this: mass confiscation is facilitated by lists, and it is done at the convenience of law enforcement and at our expense. It’s not paranoia, it actually happens. The lists simply make it easier and tell law enforcement where to go.
If it’s used in the enforcement of law, I’m all for it. If it’s nothing more than a confiscation list, I have grave reservations. I don’t want police knocking on my door and demanding something I have the right to own at the point of a gun. That’s not fair to me, my family, or the laws of the United States.
Why would something “inalienable” need to be restored? And when has the right for any person in California—let alone convicted felons—to own firearms ever been deemed by anyone (other than you, just now) to be an inalienable right?
Well, yeah, I suppose in the event of natural disaster compounded by collossal stupidity, which brings disorder and looting, I can see how having a gun to protect against home invasion would be useful. Assuming that you are not outnumbered by armed Visigoths, and assuming they don’t take you unawares and off guard, or that you have your weapon close at hand, at all times.
But I’ll tell you, Dave, I been mugged, been robbed. Don’t much like it, but I won’t kill somebody over it. And I damned sure ain’t going to try to pull a gun on somebody who already has one on me.
If its your family you want to protect, doesn’t it make better sense to concentrate on getting them the hell out of harm’s way? And if you wouldn’t kill to take what somebody else owns, why would you kill to keep something you own? Never owned anything I’d kill to keep, pretty sure I’d rather not.
You assume incorrectly that one is exclusive of the other.
I don’t care if they loot everything that I own. The one thing that they will not take is my life, or that of any member of my family.
This is not an either/or proposition.
I have no problem with disarming those who cannot legally own guns. The response to gun violence is often passing more laws instead of enforcing the existing laws. We have quite enough gun laws, thank you. In most of the horrible gun crimes splattered across the front pages, the shooters did not legally obtain the guns.
Not a challenge, but can you cite your statement about gun crime? I’m still under the impression that most victims are shot by a family member or close friend. But that might be victims of violence in general.
As a gun owner with a concealed carry permit, I fully support what the article describes. I agree with the law and think it should be enforced.
When’s the seized property auction?
Suppose you pile on layer after layer of marginally supported gun law by exploiting the brief political hysteria that follows these type of events. These laws go largely unenforced and, so, largely unchallenged in court. Then, one day… Enforce all of them on such a grand scale that by the time any challenges wind their way through the courts most of the civilian arms are paper clips and razor blades.
Alternatively, the “better enforcement” call is really more of a “give us grounds to force the issue of 2nd Amendment rights” campaign. Or a bit of both.
I’m sympathetic to Crafter_Man’s point of view. I think there should be a procedure whereby a convict who has lead a clean life can petition to have his or her right to own firearms restored.
In my opinion, if somebody has been convicted of a violent felony, they should be able to have their rights reinstated after 10 years. If they have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, they should be able to have their rights reinstated after 3 years.
I’ll second the request for a cite. It’s an interesting question actually: are the majority of gun homicides in the US committed with legally or illegally owned guns?
I agree in principle, though I’d make the waiting period after a misdemeanor 10 years as well. I imagine a prior conviction for domestic violence is in pretty good correlation with the chance of committing homicide in the future.
I agree completely. If someone poses such a threat to the community that they must be barred from owning weapons, they should still be in prison.
That said, if these people are currently legally barred from owning guns, but went and acquired them anyway, I agree that they should be busted. I won’t object to enforcing existing gun laws, but I’m strongly in favor of stripping away quite a few of them.
Wholeheartedly agreed. We need this, at the very least. One of the most galling things about the situation as it stands is that there is practically no recourse for a felon to have his or her gun rights restored (even if the original offense was a non-violent one).
Current federal law provides recourse in the form of a petition for relief to the attorney general, but that power was delegated to the BATF, and ever since 1992, congress has been forbidding the BATF in its annual budget from spending any money at all to investigate or act on petitions for relief. Absolutely despicable, IMHO.
I think it should really depend more on the particular nature of the crime. Misdemeanor domestic assault is a much more compelling reason to restrict somebody’s ability to own a firearm than, say, felony forgery.
I’ll get back to you on that. I’m nearly asleep.
What does the “article” say? Can’t you post a precis or a few paragraphs?
I’m all for it. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the vast majority of gun-related crimes in California are committed by people who own the guns illegally–whether the guns themselves are banned in the state or the people are banned from owning guns. Gun shows and smuggling from Arizona and Nevada provide holes in the state gun laws that you can drive a Mack truck through.