I was wondering whether a loss of access to firearms, and required surrender of guns, should be an aspect of the repercussions for people convicted IRT the 1/6 insurrection.
I have no idea what legal provisions would allow it, or what state/federal resources could enforce it. And I imagine it might be considered as inflammatory WRT the far right. But if there were ANY factors which suggest individuals ought NOT be allowed access to guns, a willingness to engage in insurrection would be pretty high on my list.
If they are convicted and the law already allows for it yes. If the law does not allow for it, they should in a moral sense, but no it can not be in the legal sense.
I think they would lose their ability to have guns in prison however.
Once convicted of felonies of the nature they are facing they will lose their right to own, touch or be near firearms or ammo. Exceptions being felony white collar crimes, none of which applies to insurectionist activites or even felony trespass on government property.
You’re not wrong. From 18 U.S.C. § 922, “It shall be unlawful for any person…who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year… to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce”. A crime “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” is generally the definition of “a felony”. And pretty much all firearms (and ammunition) have been “shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce” and/or “affect” interstate commerce.
I don’t see any exception for “white collar crimes” in the law. If it’s a felony, it’s a lifelong disqualification under federal law for (as you say) owning or even touching firearms or ammunition.
I do wonder if some liberal/progressive calls for gun control are at least in part rooted in an ignorance of what the laws on guns actually already are: “Why can’t we have some common-sense gun control laws–like not letting felons have guns?!?”
Kind of like the way people will sometimes say we’re giving too much money in “foreign aid”, then when you ask them “Well, how much money should we give in foreign aid?” they respond with some percentage of the federal budget that’s actually a large multiple of the amount of “foreign aid” the U.S. government actually provides.
Or perhaps we’re worried about the large number of felons who do have guns, since they are so easy to get.
I doubt if these clowns go even two weeks without a gun after they get out of jail.
A study on gun control recently looked at about a dozen forms of gun control (assault weapons bans, large capacity magazine bans, limits on concealed carry, etc).
of the dozen or so forms of gun control they looked at, only three actually reduced gun deaths.
universal background checks
letting law enforcement limit concealed carry permits
prohibiting people convicted of violent misdemeanors from owning guns
Some of the people at the capitol have only been arrested on misdemeanor charges so far. But it would be prudent to take some of their guns away since it was a violent riot and lots of cops were injured.
Do the cops actually come and take your guns away or does the convicted person sign off on documents stating that they will surrender any firearms and ammunition in their possession? If the latter I believe that they can just say that they gave their guns to a relative. I also believe that I have seen them hand over their guns and ammo over to the person that they were convicted of abusing.
This is what I have been trying to tell people, and this board for years. I am not a gun nut, I dont belong to the fucking NRA, but I do have a deep reverence for the Bill of Rights and I am loath to make laws that harass otherwise law abiding citizens just to make some idiots happy.
By and Large, most gun controls law passed have not had any significant effect on violent crime.
I am surprised about #2 since I had read the CCW holders have a low rate of violent crime?
Siegel’s team analyzed 25 years of national data to examine the relationship between 10 different types of state laws and the number of deaths by homicide and suicide in all 50 states. State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates. In contrast, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have access to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity ammunition magazine bans—and “stand your ground” laws have no effect on the rate of firearm-related homicide. None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates.
Universal background checks, which have long been a top priority for gun control advocates and policymakers in the United States, appear to have the biggest impact.
I may have misread the may issue thing, that may reduce homicide rates rather than increase them. Which if I misread it would mean that less regulation about concealed carry reduces homicide rate rather than increases it.
But this new study scrutinizes how different types of gun laws—alone and in combination—affect homicides and suicides. The study examines 10 different types of measures, including universal background checks, age limits for handgun purchases, concealed-carry laws, assault-weapon bans, prohibiting purchases for those who have committed violent crimes, stand-your-ground laws, and bans on large-capacity ammunition magazines.
Universal background checks are associated with a nearly 15 percent drop in the homicide rate. Measures that prohibit people who committed a violent crime from owning a handgun are associated with an even larger reduction in homicide, 18 percent. Conversely, requiring police to approve concealed-carry permits unless the applicant meets explicitly stated exclusion criteria—so-called “shall-issue” laws—are associated with a nearly 10 percent higher homicide rate.
A few states have mechanisms for actually confiscating them, but I don’t think the feds or a majority of states necessarily do. It’s one of those things where if someone rats you out or if the cops come to your house and find out that you’re a felon in possession of a gun, then you’re in some serious shit – a very long federal prison sentence with mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines starting at around 10 to 25 years IIRC. Not the kind of mistake a felon trying to get back into the mainstream population would want to make.