Which has fuck all to do with the danger caused by someone who was convicted of a misdemeanor 15 years ago.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 criminals — need 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
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.
Why am I getting the feeling that we’ve moved from the gun control law to Poe’s Law?
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.
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? :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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.