"Shall not be Infringed" (Heller)

[drw]

Am I the only one here that distrusts the government to the point where I doubt their sincerity in complying with the law?

No, you're not. This is why I never buy from through an FFL dealer as I don't think the feds have any business putting my name in a database.

I believe it's also the main reason why McCain and others desire to ban private party gun sales - they can't track them.

[Pinkycatcher]

Laws for removing the right (permanently for non-Felony reasons MIGHT be challenged successfully, especially if there is insufficient or no due process.)

I think non-violent felonies could also be challenged, also I personally believe rights should start to be restored after an extended period of successful reintegration into society, w/ req. such as 10 years w/o anything other than traffic violations, and a job, and participation in community service or something else constructive, that way it's kind of like a reward for becoming a member of society again and not going back to crime. But that's just me

I agree with this at least in general principle. Non-violent offenders should eventually (probably 5-10 years) be able to (at least) petition for restoration with a good probability of success. Maybe in this case the burden of proof (of innocence) shifts to the petitioner but some provision should/could be made.

The really tricky ones are the documented spouse abusers and the document sex offenders. We know that an most of these will re-offend, and the spouse abusers will account for a large part of the domestic homicides, along with drug/alcohol abusers.

More than 90% of murderers have prior felonies, documented spouse abuse, documented drug/alcohol abuse, or documented criminal gang membership -- it is actually higher probably due to juvenile records being sealed in most cases.

Something like 71-84% of murder VICTIMS had either crime records OR showed illegal drugs in their systems or were documented members of street gangs at the time of their murder.

I am uncomfortable with loss of rights with no due process or permanent loss of rights without chance of review for minor crimes.

I am very serious when I suggest that all who lose the RKBA should lose (quite a bit of) their 4th Amendment rights to avoid search and seizure -- being a prohibited person after due process should be (close to) probably cause for search.*

If this were done it would reduce crime, put the burden on those who have had due process, AND get the ACLU to spend time restoring and protecting the rights of those who are being treated unfairly. All good things.

* I would expect and support some protections for limiting this somewhat to avoid mere harassment -- maybe a reduced standard for search such as "professional judgement" or limits on frequency if nothing is found, or even just administrative rules that punish officers who abuse the added authority. But in general a person who is not trusted to own and carry firearms cannot be trusted to FOLLOW that law either, and is far more likely than the average citizen to commit a violent crime.

Now, I'm about to take a pretty big leap here and probably going to catch some flak for it. But sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of just about any crime, and they're also extremely likely to be physically/verbally harrassed after they leave jail even though they are not as likely to be a problem for the community at large especially with the large amount of programs, probation, and other hoops they have to jump through, they (with the exception of the violent ones) should be allowed to keep their guns for their own protection in my opinion. Don't forget "sex offender" classifies everyone, from people who streak, "moon" other people, have sex at 18 with their 16 yr old girlfriend, it's a really broad class that lumps everyone in together when they should be seperated for better classification.

But yah, I think violent and non-violent crimes should be seperated, I don't think non-violent crimes should even lose the right, but again that's just my opinion.

[HerbM]

Now, I'm about to take a pretty big leap here and probably going to catch some flak for it. But sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of just about any crime, and they're also extremely likely to be physically/verbally harrassed after they leave jail even though they are not as likely to be a problem for the community at large especially with the large amount of programs, probation, and other hoops they have to jump through, they (with the exception of the violent ones) should be allowed to keep their guns for their own protection in my opinion. Don't forget "sex offender" classifies everyone, from people who streak, "moon" other people, have sex at 18 with their 16 yr old girlfriend, it's a really broad class that lumps everyone in together when they should be seperated for better classification.

Is this true only because of the mistake of lumping streakers (and such) in with flashers (and such), and (near age) statutory rape in with raping children and violent rapes?

[If you of stats on this I would like to research them.]

I think one problem is that most peepers and flashers (not streakers or mooners) do repeat and/or escalate, but I would like to ascertain the facts. It is very easy to think we know (as I do) due to press reports and "what everybody knows" and then find out that it isn't true.

Most people think that you are more likely to accidentally shoot someone you care about, or have your gun taken away by a criminal, than to actually defend yourself with a firearm. It's wrong, but it is (likely) what "everyone knows".

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain

But yah, I think violent and non-violent crimes should be separated, I don't think non-violent crimes should even lose the right, but again that's just my opinion.

Agree on the general idea but the implementation is tougher.

One issue with this (and also not adding juveniles having sealed records) is plea bargaining and reduced sentences, or the issue of theft and burglary. I think we would need to separate some non-violent crimes into categories as well. Someone who is breaking into houses is eventually going to run into a home owner or occupant.

[pt145ss]

Currently in Texas, felons regain their right to possesion after 5 years. I would think if felon challenges this because they feel they deserve the right of possesion before the five year period is up...I think it would hold as reseaonable under strict scrutiny...and they will just have to wait their five years...just my opinion.

§ 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM. (a) A person
who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he
possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary
of the person's release from confinement following conviction of
the felony or the person's release from supervision under community
supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is
later; or

[Pinkycatcher]

Is this true only because of the mistake of lumping streakers (and such) in with flashers (and such), and (near age) statutory rape in with raping children and violent rapes?

[If you of stats on this I would like to research them.]

I think one problem is that most peepers and flashers (not streakers or mooners) do repeat and/or escalate, but I would like to ascertain the facts. It is very easy to think we know (as I do) due to press reports and "what everybody knows" and then find out that it isn't true.

Most people think that you are more likely to accidentally shoot someone you care about, or have your gun taken away by a criminal, than to actually defend yourself with a firearm. It's wrong, but it is (likely) what "everyone knows".

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain


Agree on the general idea but the implementation is tougher.

One issue with this (and also not adding juveniles having sealed records) is plea bargaining and reduced sentences, or the issue of theft and burglary. I think we would need to separate some non-violent crimes into categories as well. Someone who is breaking into houses is eventually going to run into a home owner or occupant.

It could very well be because they lump the stupid convictions in with everyone.

Here's one link, but you can just about google sex offender recidivism http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

[HerbM]

As we supposed the statistics on this issue are pretty confused.

This article seems pretty good, at least as a start:
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

* Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
* Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
* Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
* Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
* Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.

And of course there are the issues (discussed in the article) of first detection of re-offending, and then what constitutes a re-offense: arrest, trial, conviction, incarceration. Again, plea bargaining can complicate all of this too.

I am going to read this and do a bit more research.

[Target1911]

I agree with the "No Felons" rule, and in your opening post you seem to contradict yourself.

When a person gets convicted of a felony, they forfeit certain rights, among these the right to vote and the right to own a firearm.

Your post says that you support some felons being able to own a firearm, yet you also say you support harsh penalties for the commission of felonies. I view the felon firearm restriction as a penalty and form of punishment.

If I understand the original post correctly, he is suggesting that some non-violent felonies that are not crimes against a person should not result in the permanent removal of gun rights. I think the original post is right on in recognizing a difference between violent and non-violent crimes, and too many things are felonies these days. Permanent removal of gun rights (and voting) amounts to life-long punishment which in many cases is unreasonable.

BINGO...............WE HAVE A WINNER

[casingpoint]

In Parker v. Dist. of Columbia, Dick Heller sought to enjoin the district from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns and also the licensing requirement for a gun within one’s home.

But the opinion ruled “the district must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.�

As Heller agreed he was OK with the licensing requirement, the Supreme Court was off the hook regarding the constitutionality of licensing.

But the court clearly confirmed the right of the district to require gun registration, which Heller prayed to quash in his original filing.

Such registration is a blatant infringement of the English common law right to keep and bear arms that was codified by the Second Amendment.

An infringement by definition is an encroachment of rights beyond usual and proper limits. As a rule, guns are not registered in America, consequently there are no established proper or usual limits.

The Supreme Court did speak to the aspect of trigger locks on guns, calling them unconstitutional, so it was not asleep at the wheel by any means. It was picking and choosing it's fights.

The buck has been passed here on an important and timely issue. As a taxpayer, I’m having trouble with that sort of side-stepping.

[HerbM]

In Parker v. Dist. of Columbia, Dick Heller sought to enjoin the district from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns and also the licensing requirement for a gun within one’s home.

But the opinion ruled “the district must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.�

As Heller agreed he was OK with the licensing requirement, the Supreme Court was off the hook regarding the constitutionality of licensing.

But the court clearly confirmed the right of the district to require gun registration, which Heller prayed to quash in his original filing.

Where is the language that confirms that? What specific portion(s) of Heller are you referencing?

As you also said, licensing and registration were not even at issue.

[casingpoint]

See page two of the opinion for what Heller prayed, and the next to the last paragraph in same for what the court held.

Heller himself nixed the licensing issue, but registration was on the table and it appears SCOTUS held for gun registration. But only in the District of Columbia, and only for a gun in the home. Somebody should tell Chicago Mayor Daley, NYC's Bloomberg and the others that the Supreme Court did not say gun registration was constitutional in their jurisdiction. Only in the District of Columbia.

[nitrogen]

I would be much more likely to support removal of gun rights if it was done so as a direct concequence of a crime, i.e. part of a sentence.

"5-10 years in prison for the rape of Mrs. X, plus an additional 10 years of no second amendment rights after release or upon reexamination by a court."

Meaning, rights restricted for a specific period of time, based on a specific crime committed.

None of this "lose your rights for any crime in this bucket"

[DParker]

See page two of the opinion for what Heller prayed, and the next to the last paragraph in same for what the court held.

Heller himself nixed the licensing issue, but registration was on the table and it appears SCOTUS held for gun registration. But only in the District of Columbia, and only for a gun in the home. Somebody should tell Chicago Mayor Daley, NYC's Bloomberg and the others that the Supreme Court did not say gun registration was constitutional in their jurisdiction. Only in the District of Columbia.

In fact, they didn't even say it was constitutional in DC. They explicitely said they weren't addressing the issue because Heller wasn't challenging it.

[HerbM]

See page two of the opinion for what Heller prayed, and the next to the last paragraph in same for what the court held.

Heller himself nixed the licensing issue, but registration was on the table and it appears SCOTUS held for gun registration. But only in the District of Columbia, and only for a gun in the home. Somebody should tell Chicago Mayor Daley, NYC's Bloomberg and the others that the Supreme Court did not say gun registration was constitutional in their jurisdiction. Only in the District of Columbia.

There is no language upholding registration for homes in the decision. There are hints that such might be upheld.

A specific standard (or lack of standards) would be needed before a definitive decision could be made unless they disallowed all forms of registration -- which they did not.

For instance, it is now safe to say that a registration requirement that effectively denied the right would not pass muster and would be overturned. It is reasonable to suppose that SOME registration requirement MIGHT pass review, but there is no ruling on that nor even strong guidance.

In the case of felons denied firearms the guidance is strong -- but even then not binding. It is (theoretically at least) possible that some specific type of denial would be overturned without violating Heller.

I might take an odd case, maybe denial of rights due to a USMJ (military justice) violations that is essentially equivalent in severity to a felony in civilian law, but is due to an infraction that is not even applicable to a civilian, e.g., desertion, insubordination (?), maybe even a simple assault but on an officer. Some military laws offenses just don't apply to civilians. Now I am not saying that this would be easy nor even possible to win, just that is has not been foreclosed by Heller.

Similarly it is possible that other prohibitions covered by the same or similar regulations as "felons" might fall due to lack of due process etc.

Another issue for DC is the FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) which apparently disallows a Federal database gun registry -- if DC is ruled to be effectively creating such a registry then it might fail this way as well. (This is not quite the same as whether it passes Constitutional tests however.)

[Target1911]

I would be much more likely to support removal of gun rights if it was done so as a direct concequence of a crime, i.e. part of a sentence.

"5-10 years in prison for the rape of Mrs. X, plus an additional 10 years of no second amendment rights after release or upon reexamination by a court."

Meaning, rights restricted for a specific period of time, based on a specific crime committed.

None of this "lose your rights for any crime in this bucket"

I would be ok with this. I dont like the "Blanket" laws reguarding this subject. As mentioned above, to many DIFFERENT crimes are thrown into one bucket.

[Venus Pax]

But sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of just about any crime...

In the 18-year-old-having-sex-with-a-16-year-old and the mooned-someone-at-a-party scenarios, I can see where this would be true. I also find it unfortunate and wrong that they are lumped with the more sinister offenders.

However, your claim is wrong for child sex offenders and rapists. These types tend to reoffend, and often get increasingly violent with each offense. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, with or without a weapon.