Firearms and "sporting purpose" - Page 2 - National Politics / Debate

rivalarrival · 02-01-2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian

So even after serving time in prison and making restitution, you can be released back into society with fewer rights than everyone else? That's certainly the way it works, but I'd argue that's not the way it's supposed to work.

We can argue back and forth about whether it's supposed to be this way or not. If convicted of a serious crime, I see no reason why certain rights shouldn't be permanently forfeited, even if incarceration is only warranted for a certain period of time.

Quote:

Right, a judge must sign off on sending someone for a psych eval even if they don't want one.

No. Police and medical personnel can order a limited psych hold (typically 24 hours) without a court order. A judge need not be involved in this.

Quote:

But even if the person is deemed sane and no threat, they can still be denied the right to procure firearms as a result of that forced eval.

No. A temporary evaluation alone is NOT sufficient to do what you claim. A court order is required to legally deprive someone of their rights. If you have experienced otherwise, I suggest you speak to a civil rights attorney, as your rights may have been violated.

Quote:

Should someone, at significant personal expense, have to hire a lawyer and go through a long legal process to fight to get his or her rights acknowledged again by the state?

If they have been adjudicated as mentally deficient with regards to firearm ownership, yes. Adjudication means that a formal hearing was held, and a judge has signed an order stating that a person is mentally deficient.

Granted, a judge can abuse his power, but there are other safeguards in place - such as the right to appeal to a higher court - to help prevent such abuse.

Quote:

Presumably, someone with a DD has done the time for whatever crime s/he committed.

Presumably, a lifetime prohibition on firearm ownership was part of the "time" for whatever crime was committed, as was a prohibition on voting, etc.

Quote:

In a round-about fashion, you're right. The purpose of the BoR is to secure rights, not provide means for the federal government to step on them. Yes, due process is important and more often than not the legal system implements it. However, nowhere does the constitution say that even after having been judged guilty of a crime should a person forever be denied any rights.

No, but it does speak of cruel and unusual punishments. The courts have held that denying a convicted felon the right to bear arms or vote is neither cruel nor unusual. Should the people disagree, they have the option to create law that permits released felons to obtain firearms.

Quote:

I'm not trying to stick up for criminals; but our system of dealing with them is broken. Violent felons whose cases have solid proof (DNA, witnesses, video, etc.) should be executed, not released back onto the streets.

My opinion on the death penalty is a bit convoluted. The ONLY use of the death penalty is as a deterrent to other would-be criminals, yet executions are conducted years after the fact, in closed rooms with no cameras. We're executing people as far away from public view as we can get. This isn't right. If we're going to use the death penalty for its deterrent effect, each execution should be conducted during prime-time, broadcast live on CSPAN, and available to all the networks. Split-screen should show evidence photos of the victims, and the criminal should suffer as much as his victims did. If as a society, we are unwilling to subject criminals to such an execution, we have no business executing anybody. As such, I can go either way on the death penalty, the only thing I can say right now is that we're not doing it right.

Quote:

While in prison, rights are suspended. But once released, ex-cons should enjoy all the rights and freedoms of anyone else.

Voting rights is another example. Where in the constitution is the federal government authorized to bar felons (who have been released from prison) from voting?

Again, these arguments presume that prison is the only punishment for the crime. It's not. I'm failing to see the problem with including a lifelong ban on firearm ownership as part of the punishment following a felony conviction.

Quote:

Well, that's one interpretation.

It's an essential interpretation. If you cannot reasonably safeguard your firearms - whether a .22 short revolver, a 155mm howitzer, or a thermonuclear weapon, you don't have the right to own them. Every state has explicit laws about negligently storing weapons, based on the danger a firearm can present when it is in the wrong hands. Being the victim of a crime doesn't automatically eliminate one's responsibility. It may be illegal to trespass on someone's property, but you would still be negligent if a trespasser stole your unsupervised gun from your front porch.

Quote:

Many militia groups around the country (these aren't the supremacist nuts the media likes to portray as "militias") are made up of or run by former military personnel and they train hard often over the course of years. I'd be surprised if many of these groups weren't effective fighting forces.

Per US code, the militia consists of all able-bodied male citizens (and those who have declared an intent to become citizens) between the ages of 17 and 45, as well as all female members of the National Guard. The militia is subdivided into "Organized" groups (members of the National Guard) and "unorganized" groups (everyone else). "Militia groups" would seem to be groups comprised primarily of members of the unorganized militia.

You say that they train hard, tell me: How much training do members of these "militia groups" conduct in supersonic aircraft?

A professional military pilot is held to a set of standards. We can quantify his capabilities, and determine the likelihood that he can complete the mission assigned to him. He is a professional. For that matter, he can be compelled to obey orders! The same can be said of any soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. This does not hold true for unaffiliated militia groups and their members.

No matter how well-trained and effective a militia group can be, it can't produce a well-trained fighter pilot, and even if it could, a centralized training program could do it faster and cheaper. This is the nature of a large number of military roles and responsibilities.

My point is that local control of military units, outside the influence of a unified command structure, would give us a far more expensive and far less capable military force.

Quote:

My point was that placing the vast majority of the nation's military power in the control of the federal government was something the Framers wanted to avoid. Looking back on history, this can be a bad thing when combined with draconian gun control laws.

The framers were human, not some sort of divinely inspired creators. The work they did was brilliant, but not without flaw. For instance, they tolerated slavery, an institution we have long since rejected. They planned that the runner-up to the president should be the vice president. Just because they never planned for a federal-level military doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

There is a danger to having so much authority concentrated among a few people. But again, there is significant oversight from various levels and branches of our government "of the people, for the people, and by the people".

Perhaps the most important, if seldomly realized check in this power is that the military is comprised of American citizens, sworn to protect and defend the constitution, not the government. We demand that our troops obey only lawful and moral orders. We punish our troops for obeying unlawful orders. This creates a situation where our military readiness falls apart as soon as leadership steps out of line with the will of the people.

Brian · 02-02-2011, 04:00 AM