PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the list of dis-qualifiers for possessing a firearm will broaden?


froopah_loop
10-24-2010, 6:06 AM
As it stands for a criminal in 2010 there are some offenses that do and do not disqualify a criminal from possessing firearms, obtaining a CCW, etc. But.... What is the probability that things will change and there will become a broadening of the list of dis-qualifiers... A much more encompassing list of offenses that would then place a lot of previously qualified people (with records) into a disqualified category? Do you think for instance that a certain category of crimes would be added on?

Currently it seems that for the most part if you're not violent and/or mentally unstable or have not committed a somewhat serious offense (as in something punishable by a year or more of imprisonment etc.) then you're okay but what are the chances (assuming there is a chance) that more offenses will be tacked onto that list?

Meplat
10-24-2010, 6:27 AM
They will try. They will not get fart.

CaliforniaLiberal
10-24-2010, 6:31 AM
Shhhh! The Bradys and LCAVs are listening!

:hide:


This is a really bad idea, the disqualifying offenses should be fewer, not more. Perhaps only violent offenses with a firearm.

froopah_loop
10-24-2010, 6:59 AM
Yeah meplat made me realize I think I asked the question incorrectly....

So we're in agreement it's definitely something that would be attempted.

Then that means the real question is; what do you think the likelihood would be of the success of implementation? I mean, would this be something easily struck down somehow?

loather
10-24-2010, 9:08 AM
We won't know until we have the question of scrutiny level answered. Once we know that we'll have a better idea of how difficult it will be to have those declared unconstitutional: if we get strict scrutiny like we should, it will be very difficult for things like that to stand. Intermediate scrutiny and we'll be fighting for them, many will be upheld.

Here's to hoping the courts decide properly on the levels of scrutiny. We'll see what happens...

RRangel
10-24-2010, 9:24 AM
Since the incorporation of the Second Amendment attempts to marginalize our rights will certainly get more scrutiny. I don't see it being so easy for the antis. See the recent SAF lawsuit (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352345) against the federal government for denying gun possession for misdemeanors.

NightOwl
10-24-2010, 12:41 PM
There is a continual effort to make more and more things disqualifying. If this is not resisted and pushed the other way, to make freedom the gold standard for purchase/ownership of firearms, then eventually yes. It will seem oh so reasonable, too, by holding up terrible acts/individuals as an example of who they're trying to protect us from, when in reality our rights are being stripped away a little bit at a time.

First it was no disqualifyers.
Then felons.
Then only really naughty misdemeanors (DV, and apparently in that lawsuit Assault & Battery)
...what next?

If you're not incarcerated, you should be able to own and carry firearms, imo.

anthonyca
10-24-2010, 1:08 PM
There is a continual effort to make more and more things disqualifying. If this is not resisted and pushed the other way, to make freedom the gold standard for purchase/ownership of firearms, then eventually yes. It will seem oh so reasonable, too, by holding up terrible acts/individuals as an example of who they're trying to protect us from, when in reality our rights are being stripped away a little bit at a time.

First it was no disqualifyers.
Then felons.
Then only really naughty misdemeanors (DV, and apparently in that lawsuit Assault & Battery)
...what next?

If you're not incarcerated, you should be able to own and carry firearms, imo.

This.

The problem is most people feel that because they have no convictions they won't be caught up in the prohibitions not realizing that the chances of them never have committed a prohibiting offense is almost 0.

2Bear
10-24-2010, 3:13 PM
As it stands for a criminal in 2010 there are some offenses <...>

Some? (Gopod forbid you want a CCW...)



CALIFORNIA PROHIBITING MISDEMEANORS
As of January, 1999

Pursuant to Penal Code (PC) section 12021(c)(1), any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation for any of the following offenses is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his or her custody or
control any firearms within 10 years of the conviction:

• Threatening public officers, employees and school officials (PC section 71).
• Threatening certain public officials, appointees, judges, staff or their families with the intent and apparent ability
to carry out the threat (PC section 76).
• Possessing a deadly weapon with the intent to intimidate a witness (PC section 136.5).
• Threatening witnesses, victims, or informants (PC section 140).
• Attempting to remove or take a firearm from the person or immediate presence of a public or peace officer (PC section 148(d)).
• Unauthorized possession of a weapon in a courtroom, courthouse or court building, or at a public meeting (PC section 171(b)).
• Bringing into or possessing a loaded firearm within the state capitol, legislative offices, etc. (PC section 171c).
• Taking into or possessing loaded firearms within the Governor’s Mansion or residence of other constitutional officers, etc. (PC section 171(d)).
• Supplying, selling or giving possession of a firearm to a person for participation in criminal street gangs (PC section 186.28).
• Assault (PC sections 240, 241)
• Battery (PC sections 242, 243).
• Assault with a stun gun or Taber weapon (PC section 244.5)
• Assault with deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury (PC section 245).
• Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument, by any means likely to produce great bodily injury or with a stun gun or Taber on a school employee engaged in performance of duties (PC section 245.5).
• Shooting at an inhabited or occupied dwelling house, building, vehicle, aircraft, horsecart or camper (PC section 246).
• Discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (PC section 246.3)
• Shooting at an unoccupied aircraft, motor vehicle, or uninhabited building or dwelling house (PC section 247)
• Inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or significant other (PC section 273.5)
• Willfully violating a domestic protective order (PC section 273.6).
• Drawing, exhibiting, or using any deadly weapon other than a firearm (PC sections 417(a)(1), 417(a)(2)).
• Brandishing a firearm in presence of a peace officer (PC section 417.1 – repealed by stats. 1998).
• Drawing or exhibiting, selling, manufacturing, or distributing firearm replicas or imitations (PC section 417.2).
• Inflicting serious bodily injury as a result of brandishing (PC section 417.6).
• Bringing into or possessing firearms upon or within public schools and grounds (PC section 626.9).
• Stalking (PC section 646.9).
• Armed criminal action (PC section 12023).
• Possessing a deadly weapon with intent to commit an assault (PC section 12024).
• Driver or any vehicle who knowingly permits another person to discharge a firearm from the vehicle or any
person who will fully and maliciously discharges a firearm from a motor vehicle (PC sections 12034(b), 12034(d)).
• Criminal possession of a firearm (PC section 12040).
• Firearms dealer who sells or transfers or gives possession of any firearm to a minor or a handgun to a person under the age of 21 (PC section 12072(b)).
• Various violations involving sales and transfers of firearms (PC section 12072(g)(3)).
• Person or corporation who sells any concealable firearm to any minor (PC section 12100(a) – repealed by stats. 1994).
• Unauthorized possession/transportation of a machine gun (PC section 12220).
• Possession of ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor (PC section 12320).
• Carrying a concealed or loaded firearm or other deadly weapon or wearing a peace officer uniform, while picketing (PC section 12590).
• Bringing firearm related contraband into juvenile hall (WIC section 871.5).
• Bringing firearm related contraband into a youth authority institution (WIC section 1001.5).
• Purchase, possession, or receipt of a firearm or deadly weapon by a person receiving in-patient treatment for a mental disorder, or by a person who has communicated to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical
violence against an identifiable victim (WIC section 8100).
• Providing a firearm or deadly weapon to a person described in WIC sections 8100 or 8103 (WIC section 8101).
• Purchase, possession, or receipt of a firearm or deadly weapon by a person who has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender or found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity, and individuals placed under a conservatorship (WIC section 8103).

FEDERAL PROHIBITING CATEGORIES FOR POSSESSING FIREARMS
Gun Control Act of 1968, Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44
As of January, 1999

Pursuant to Section 922, any person listed below is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving any firearm, who:
• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
• Is a fugitive from justice.
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
• Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship.
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
• Has an out-of-state prohibitive criminal history.
• Has a prior denial on a previous National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) inquiry.

CALIFORNIA PROHIBITING CATEGORIES FOR A CCW LICENSE
As of January, 1999
• Persons convicted of a felony, or any offense enumerated in section 12021.1 of the Penal Code (PC).
• Persons addicted to the use of narcotics.
• Persons denied firearm possession as a condition of probation pursuant to PC section 12021(d).
• Persons convicted of a specified misdemeanor pursuant to PC section 12021(c)(1) are prohibited from purchasing
or possessing firearms for 10 years (see Attachment 2).
• Juveniles adjudged wards of the juvenile court because they committed a 707(b) Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC)
offense, an offense described in PC section 1203.073(b) or any offense enumerated in PC section 12021(c)(1) are
prohibited until they reach age 30.
• Persons who are subject to a protective order as defined in section 6218 of the Family Code, or a temporary restraining order or injunction issued pursuant to sections 527.6 or 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Persons found by a court to be a danger to others because of mental illness.
• Persons found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial.
• Persons found by a court to be not guilty by reason of insanity.
• Persons adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender.
• Persons placed on a conservatorship because they are gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism
• Persons who communicate a threat to a licensed psychotherapist, against a reasonably identifiable victim, and the psychotherapist reports to law enforcement pursuant to WIC section 8100(b), are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm for 6 months.
• Persons in a mental health facility certified pursuant to WIC sections 5250, 5260, and 5270.15 are prohibited from possessing or purchasing or attempting to purchase firearms for 5 years.
• Persons who are voluntary patients in a mental facility who are determined to be a danger to self or others are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm between admission and discharge.
• Persons under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

I'm not for arming the badguys, but you don't need to be a "criminal" to get screwed by this SNAFU.

VW*Mike
10-24-2010, 3:21 PM
they will always try, all we can do is fight, and make it more difficult. As long as we fight the chances are slim they will. If they do, will people with current convictions still be allowed to own firearms since they are "grandfathered in" for a lack of a better term? I have no idea.

HowardW56
10-24-2010, 3:21 PM
They will try. They will not get fare.

Or vary FAR either...... :90:

CalBear
10-24-2010, 3:23 PM
Probably. We'll really need to worry if ma'am gets her way and people on the terror watch-list become banned.

bandook
10-24-2010, 7:00 PM
Probably. We'll really need to worry if ma'am gets her way and people on the terror watch-list become banned.

Ma'am or no Ma'am, Terror watch list people aren't going to get banned from buying guns. She's talking out of her ª∫∫.

If a budding terrorist wants to find out whether they're on the watch list, they just need to go out and try to get a gun. The result of this gun purchase exercise is bad all around.

Either the budding terrorist is not on the watch list but is now needlessly armed (probably many times over as they'll probably test the waters every so often by buying additional guns)
OR
The person is refused the gun and now knows that he needs to lie low.

sholling
10-24-2010, 7:11 PM
Probably. We'll really need to worry if ma'am gets her way and people on the terror watch-list become banned.
I think that if it weren't for the voter revolt that we're seeing this year that a terrorist watch list ban might have come about next year. That list would have included anyone that belonged to any militias, Oath Keepers, TEA Party attendees, Young Republicans, Fox News employees, and probably gun board members. But it's not going to happen now that a big chunk of the bums are about to be thrown out. But I did find it interesting to hear Lautenberg hawking the terror watch ban on Fox News a couple of days ago.

bwiese
10-24-2010, 7:21 PM
At the state level, UC Davis 'researcher' Dr. Garen Wintemute wants to prohibit sales/ownership to folks with prior misdemeanor charges for unpapered CCW, and I believe he also wants to have other technical gun violations result in being prohibited as well.

He's one of the LCAV's pet academics and misuses his status as "Dr." to try to say freedom is a treatable disease. (The mofo probably can't cure a wart so he found somethng to agitate about...)

CCWFacts
10-24-2010, 7:55 PM
Regardless of if they expand the list (to include more MDs or the watch list), they keep on adding more new felonies every year, at state and federal levels. That trend shows no sign of slowing down, ever.

CalBear
10-24-2010, 8:06 PM
Regardless of if they expand the list (to include more MDs or the watch list), they keep on adding more new felonies every year, at state and federal levels. That trend shows no sign of slowing down, ever.
Guns aren't the only thing affected by this trend. The march toward legalism, extreme punishment, and the various witch hunts going on right now will only intensify with time. People want to punish, and are willing to do a whole lot in the name of security... this includes giving up rights. It's sad, but this is the path we're on. I think things will boil over at some point.

dantodd
10-24-2010, 8:27 PM
Or vary FAR either...... :90:

:no: :rofl2: :stuart:

Meplat
10-24-2010, 8:51 PM
Or vary FAR either...... :90:

Spelling Nazi!!:p

ElectronWrangler
10-24-2010, 9:11 PM
At the state level, UC Davis 'researcher' Dr. Garen Wintemute wants to prohibit sales/ownership to folks with prior misdemeanor charges for unpapered CCW, and I believe he also wants to have other technical gun violations result in being prohibited as well.

He's one of the LCAV's pet academics and misuses his status as "Dr." to try to say freedom is a treatable disease. (The mofo probably can't cure a wart so he found somethng to agitate about...)

My sister works at UCD Med Center in the IT department and she has been telling me about a Doctor that goes on "stings" at gun shows. And has "special" access to gun registration data. Might this be the same doctor?
EW

dantodd
10-24-2010, 9:14 PM
My sister works at UCD Med Center in the IT department and she has been telling me about a Doctor that goes on "stings" at gun shows. And has "special" access to gun registration data. Might this be the same doctor?
EW

I'm sure that any evidence of "special" access to gun registration data would be greatly appreciated.

kcbrown
10-24-2010, 9:33 PM
Guns aren't the only thing affected by this trend. The march toward legalism, extreme punishment, and the various witch hunts going on right now will only intensify with time. People want to punish, and are willing to do a whole lot in the name of security... this includes giving up rights. It's sad, but this is the path we're on. I think things will boil over at some point.

I don't think they will boil over.

Throughout history, the vast majority of people have been slaves or serfs. People seem almost hardwired to live lives of subjugation. And our society is really no different. If you want proof, just ask yourself how many people out there don't have a boss compared with the number that do.

So no, it won't boil over, because despite the concepts of natural rights and other such things, the fact of the matter is that people are social animals who have been trained from birth to do as others in positions of authority tell them to do. And I'd bet the same thing is true of your kids, too, as much as you may hate to admit it (if it's not true of your kids then you are an exemplary parent, for it means you will let them ask any question, no matter how inane it may seem to you, and answer it honestly; you will let them ask you why they should do something and you will always given them a forthright and honest answer, and not merely a "because I said so!" non-answer).

In the face of that, why in the world would people put their own livelihoods at risk unless someone in power told them to?

Canute
10-24-2010, 11:50 PM
Ma'am or no Ma'am, Terror watch list people aren't going to get banned from buying guns. She's talking out of her ª∫∫.

Yeah, that's why they have to let people on the no-fly list fly. Otherwise they'd know that we know that they're planning.
Catch 22.

41M
10-25-2010, 2:32 AM
A concern of mine along similar lines is the possibility that as more veterans get documented as suffering from PTSD or other combat related mental health or neurological issues that such documentation may be used to block their ownership of firearms. I could see attempts to label such veterans as a threat to themselves or others as a basis for restrictions of their rights. I would certainly hope that those veterans needing assistace would not avoid seeking help out of fears along this line. The disdain shown for veterans by trying to suggest they might be more likely to be recruited as terrorists came to light with the DHS report on domestic terrorism threat. I wouldn't put it past some anti-gunners to try using this route.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-25-2010, 6:18 AM
A concern of mine along similar lines is the possibility that as more veterans get documented as suffering from PTSD or other combat related mental health or neurological issues that such documentation may be used to block their ownership of firearms. I could see attempts to label such veterans as a threat to themselves or others as a basis for restrictions of their rights. I would certainly hope that those veterans needing assistace would not avoid seeking help out of fears along this line. The disdain shown for veterans by trying to suggest they might be more likely to be recruited as terrorists came to light with the DHS report on domestic terrorism threat. I wouldn't put it past some anti-gunners to try using this route.


I they already have tried this.

In any event, I think the answer to the OP's question is: No. Now that the 2A is recognized as a Fundamental Right, the odds of restrictions go down. This gets even better once we have Strict Scrutiny.

Also, keep in mind the fine work the ACLU is doing. Every time they succeed in getting voting (another Fundamental Right) rights restored for ex-felons, they advance the cause for us as well.


The Raisuli

sholling
10-25-2010, 8:32 AM
Regardless of if they expand the list (to include more MDs or the watch list), they keep on adding more new felonies every year, at state and federal levels. That trend shows no sign of slowing down, ever.
This is so true. I'd hazard a guess that 90% of the general population 25 or older have committed at least one prohibiting offense at least once in their lives. Anything from fudging on their taxes one way or another, to experimenting once with pot, to who knows. That's why prohibiting convictions need to be limited to a handful and sunset after the debt is paid.

Wherryj
10-25-2010, 9:32 AM
Shhhh! The Bradys and LCAVs are listening!

:hide:


This is a really bad idea, the disqualifying offenses should be fewer, not more. Perhaps only violent offenses with a firearm.

No need for secrecy, the Bradys already know. What do you think Lautenberg was about?

Wherryj
10-25-2010, 9:35 AM
Yeah, that's why they have to let people on the no-fly list fly. Otherwise they'd know that we know that they're planning.
Catch 22.

I know a physician who has a son with the same name as someone on the watch list. They are held up at EVERY gate even though he is only four years old.

I don't know if it is a consistently enforced list, but I'd hazard a guess that at least some of those on the list are aware, at least from the fact that they've been stopped from boarding a plane.

N6ATF
10-25-2010, 9:48 AM
Insert obligatory toddler terrorist joke here...

HowardW56
10-25-2010, 9:54 AM
Spelling Nazi!!:p


I resemble that remark!

HowardW56
10-25-2010, 9:57 AM
Insert obligatory toddler terrorist joke here...

My son terrorized the pre school when he was 3.... :D

I don't think he REALLY wanted to be there....

ElectronWrangler
10-25-2010, 12:30 PM
I'm sure that any evidence of "special" access to gun registration data would be greatly appreciated.

The only evidence I have is what she told me was said in front of her. I grilled her after hearing this, didn't go to well I think there's a little bit of hero worship there. She did say that he's doing some kind of research comparing gun registration info to some form of prohibited person list.
EW

froopah_loop
10-25-2010, 8:55 PM
Okay I see by how I word myself I came across as seemingly tolerant of a prohibited list.... I am not tolerant of such a list. There is no logical reason for it's existence. Just let me make that clear.

I also should not have asked whether everyone felt a push would be made to increase the extent of the prohibited list. What I should have asked from the start was what kinds of things could make this happen? Can it even happen? I mean with all the huge and very impressive moves that are being made as of late it would seem like an increase in the list is not likely. (Nor would it seem likely any further attacks on the 2A from other angles would successfully make it through into law.) But I am ignorant as to how the law works (as I am sure you can tell for yourself) so I decided to ask this question.

If you're not incarcerated, you should be able to own and carry firearms, imo.

I agree with this sentiment for the most part. If you are trusted enough to run around free out in society then why is there any reason you should be denied? If you're not already locked up and have no mental condition that impairs your grip on reality then guns for all!


Hmm if I put my paranoid cap on and think about the fact that in the US we (currently at least) enjoy the greatest firearms freedom of any other free nation yet we also have the greatest prisoner population within the entire world and it only continues to grow. Does this say something? Connection? So instead of passing laws to prohibit more people, just lock everybody up. Problem solved? Taking my paranoid cap and putting it back in it's place.


I'm not for arming the badguys, but you don't need to be a "criminal" to get screwed by this SNAFU.

I also agree it is far too easy to become a "criminal."


I'm preaching to the choir of the utmost highest order here but... We need gov out of our lives, society should be self-regulating. If everyone walked around armed then what few problems did arise would be quickly rectified on the spot at the behest and judgment of regular, everyday citizens on-the-scene. Law enforcement would play a very small role in such a society. But yes, of course, what I am speaking of is pure fantasy. We all know such a society is not going to be allowed to exist.


While on this topic would you agree with the logic that there is a distinct difference between a criminal and someone whom has committed a crime? A criminal is someone whom is habitual and continues with their actions regardless of the consequences. The criminal has no remorse and continues to do what they do. The 2nd category are those with records but have done "the deed" only once. These are the types that have learned from their mistake and moved on. They have remained law abiding since and plan to stay that way.




they will always try, all we can do is fight, and make it more difficult. As long as we fight the chances are slim they will. If they do, will people with current convictions still be allowed to own firearms since they are "grandfathered in" for a lack of a better term? I have no idea.


The "grandfathered" thing. Anyone after a particular date, regardless of their convictions is free from any further changes in the law.... Don't think there should be a list in the first place but more disconcerting is thinking about a Lautenberg Act version 2 or sorts. With version 2 having nothing do with DV and so on.


Shhhh! The Bradys and LCAVs are listening!:hide:

:D Well what I'm talking about is not a new idea but you're right we don't need to refresh their memory either!





We won't know until we have the question of scrutinylevel answered. .

Since the incorporation of the Second Amendment
attempts to marginalize our rights will certainly get more scrutiny.

I they already have tried this.

In any event, I think the answer to the OP's question is: No. Now that the 2A is recognized as a Fundamental Right, the odds of restrictions go down. This gets even better once we have Strict Scrutiny.

Also, keep in mind the fine work the ACLU is doing. Every time they succeed in getting voting (another Fundamental Right) rights restored for ex-felons, they advance the cause for us as well.


The Raisuli

Googling the search term calguns and scrutiny was an eye opener. I make repeat statements to the fact but again, I'm not very educated when it comes to the law and how it functions. Scrutiny is what makes me most hopeful.



I would have been very happy (for once) had this thread been buried into obscurity having received very few responses (which is actually how I expected this to turn out.) I figured answers would be 'no' across the board... And people asking what rock did you just crawl out from under? :43: Have you not been paying attention to everything that's been going on lately?

anthonyca
10-26-2010, 5:12 PM
Yes I do believe they will try to expand the list of prohibiting offenses for owning firearms.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=356599&highlight=new+york+prohibiting

Quote:
New York City residents who want to own a gun may soon be denied permits if they are litterbugs, if they are bad drivers, or if they have fallen behind on a few bills.

Under proposed revisions to the police department's handgun, rifle and shotgun permit procedures, the NYPD can reject gun license applicants for a number of reasons, including:

If they have been arrested or convicted of almost any "violation," in any state; having a "poor driving history"; having been fired for "circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment"; having "failed to pay legally required debts"; being deemed to lack "good moral character"; or if any other information demonstrates "other good cause for the denial of the permit."

More...

2Bear
10-26-2010, 5:40 PM
But I am ignorant as to how the law works <...> so I decided to ask this question.

Ignorance of how sausage is made is no excuse for eating chorizo. :)

We all know such a society is not going to be allowed to exist.

Don't be so sure. If we don't fund LEAs, the tide will change, but perhaps it doesn't require that high a percentage of an armed populace to secure society?

Perhaps one in ten will suffice?

"Who will be armed and who will not?" is the interesting question...

In a society of less order it becomes more and more important to maintain your RKBA, and correspondingly, there'll be more incentive to deny you that right.

GrizzlyGuy
10-26-2010, 6:04 PM
I also should not have asked whether everyone felt a push would be made to increase the extent of the prohibited list. What I should have asked from the start was what kinds of things could make this happen? Can it even happen? I mean with all the huge and very impressive moves that are being made as of late it would seem like an increase in the list is not likely. (Nor would it seem likely any further attacks on the 2A from other angles would successfully make it through into law.) But I am ignorant as to how the law works (as I am sure you can tell for yourself) so I decided to ask this question.

It can happen and it will happen, as creating new prohibiting categories is an effective way of restricting gun ownership. That is the goal of the antis and they obviously have lots of friends in our state legislature. Here is a scenario illustrating one way that it could happen (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5190893&postcount=194).

Note that in Heller (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf), SCOTUS said:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

They are acknowledging that a variety of prohibiting factors are and would be constitutional, so federal courts may not be able to save us from whatever new ones the antis choose to create.

N6ATF
10-26-2010, 6:24 PM
CARB could get in on the action. I wouldn't be surprised at them making "emitting the pollutant carbon dioxide" and "consuming dihydrogen monoxide" as prohibiting factors.

M14 Junkie
10-27-2010, 12:31 AM
Some? (Gopod forbid you want a CCW...)



I'm not for arming the badguys, but you don't need to be a "criminal" to get screwed by this SNAFU.

Oh, I don't know about that.....every situation in those lists you posted either indicates you are a person who is mentally unstable. Ie; goes around threatening other people, (a nut-job for all intents and purposes) or, you have already been convicted of something-BAD.

I don't have a problem with any of it.

2Bear
10-27-2010, 12:52 AM
Oh, I don't know about that.....every situation in those lists you posted either indicates you are a person who is mentally unstable. Ie; goes around threatening other people, (a nut-job for all intents and purposes) or, you have already been convicted of something-BAD.

I don't have a problem with any of it.

Huh?

There's a LOT of silly stuff in there. Pick any example...

No RKBA for 10 years for:


• Unauthorized possession of a weapon <...> at a public meeting (PC section 171(b)).

• Possession of ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor (PC section 12320).

• Drawing or exhibiting <...> firearm replicas or imitations (PC section 417.2).

NightOwl
10-27-2010, 12:56 AM
Oh, I don't know about that.....every situation in those lists you posted either indicates you are a person who is mentally unstable. Ie; goes around threatening other people, (a nut-job for all intents and purposes) or, you have already been convicted of something-BAD.

I don't have a problem with any of it.

Really? I do. If they're such a nut-job, as you put it, that they're a threat, perhaps they should still be in jail? You know, out in public they have access to cars, knives, chainsaws, bats, gasoline and lighters, the list goes on and on. Yet, the overwhelming majority are not using these things to kill people on a day to day basis.

Since we already trust them to sit next to us on the bus, work at our businesses, fly kites in our parks, and possess deadly weapons...why not allow them to possess guns? I'd rather they have guns if they're free, personally, so they're on even footing for defending themselves in the future, legally. It's a better alternative than locking them up for having one even if they didn't break the law with it. If they're a threat to society, they shouldn't be out in public in the first place. If they're not, then let them be free.

It's not like we're keeping guns out of criminals hands, we're just criminalizing people having one...

GrizzlyGuy
10-27-2010, 7:49 AM
Oh, I don't know about that.....every situation in those lists you posted either indicates you are a person who is mentally unstable. Ie; goes around threatening other people, (a nut-job for all intents and purposes) or, you have already been convicted of something-BAD.

I don't have a problem with any of it.

You should have a problem with the lack of substantive due process in a lot of those cases. Did you know that the "nut-job" determination can be made by a LEO and a mental health counselor, both of whom may have little or no training in the field of psychiatry, agreeing that you maybe/might be dangerous? No judge or jury is involved and you lose your RKBA for 5 years, even if a psychiatrist decides 4 hours later that you really weren't dangerous at all.

The restraining order/protective order prohibitions are just as bad. A judge is involved, but judges frequently issue these orders based only on someone's allegation that may or may not have any supporting evidence, and could be entirely fabricated. When in doubt, judges tend to issue these "to play it safe". If issued, you have 24 hours to sell all your guns. Hopefully you are on very good terms with your neighbors. All it would take is one spiteful neighbor to ruin your day in a real big way.

Then there is Mr. Lautenberg who issued this report (http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/TerrorReport.102010.pdf) just a few days ago (same broken record from his prior ramblings). He wants government bureaucrats to be able to strip you of your gun rights whenever they think that you maybe/might be a "terrorist". Again, no judge or jury is involved.

Fortunately the good guys are fighting back against some of these prohibitions that can be put in place with little or no due process (such as Chuck Michel here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=337306)).

Ed_in_Sac
10-27-2010, 7:59 AM
Honestly don't know, but there seems to be some talk about mental stability and testing.

ravenbkp
10-27-2010, 12:37 PM
Ummm Yes. The latest proposal I have seen includes moving violations and some classes of bad debts!!!!!

stix213
10-27-2010, 1:46 PM
If the anti's in the legislature could make breathing cause to make you ineligible to purchase a firearm, they would.

N6ATF
10-27-2010, 1:58 PM
What's to stop them other than an insanely slow federal court case?

M14 Junkie
10-27-2010, 2:40 PM
You should have a problem with the lack of substantive due process in a lot of those cases. Did you know that the "nut-job" determination can be made by a LEO and a mental health counselor, both of whom may have little or no training in the field of psychiatry, agreeing that you maybe/might be dangerous? No judge or jury is involved and you lose your RKBA for 5 years, even if a psychiatrist decides 4 hours later that you really weren't dangerous at all.

The restraining order/protective order prohibitions are just as bad. A judge is involved, but judges frequently issue these orders based only on someone's allegation that may or may not have any supporting evidence, and could be entirely fabricated. When in doubt, judges tend to issue these "to play it safe". If issued, you have 24 hours to sell all your guns. Hopefully you are on very good terms with your neighbors. All it would take is one spiteful neighbor to ruin your day in a real big way.Then there is Mr. Lautenberg who issued this report (http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/TerrorReport.102010.pdf) just a few days ago (same broken record from his prior ramblings). He wants government bureaucrats to be able to strip you of your gun rights whenever they think that you maybe/might be a "terrorist". Again, no judge or jury is involved.

Fortunately the good guys are fighting back against some of these prohibitions that can be put in place with little or no due process (such as Chuck Michel here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=337306)).

Don't for one minute think that I don't know it. ENSURING THAT DUE PROCESS IS DONE, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILTY TO MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS.

DON'T YOU KNOW THAT? IN THIS STATE/COUNTRY, you are firstly arrested. What happens to you after that is entirely up to YOU!

IF you cannot afford good representation to defend yourself, YOU ARE TOTALLY FU#K#D.

That's the way it is in this State/Country. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

The best thing that ANYONE can DO for THEMSELVES is TO DO EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN TO STAY OUT OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

They will treat you as a number, to be dealt with swiftly, and with the utmost severity.

The days of a Utopian society and forgiving courts are LONG GONE.

This is the world that we live in.

2Bear
10-27-2010, 3:31 PM
IF you cannot afford good representation to defend yourself


You endear yourself to The Right People. :o

The latest proposal I have seen includes <...> bad debts!!!!!

Doh! :cool:

M14 Junkie
10-27-2010, 4:50 PM
[QUOTE=2Bear;5199370]You endear yourself to The Right People. :o

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You could at least have been HONEST ENOUGH to quote the entire statement IN CONTEXT.

You could have a budding career in the media, no doubt.

2Bear
10-27-2010, 5:21 PM
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

You were quite emphatic in your original post, Post #38 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5196278&postcount=38), hence the responses you're getting here.

You could at least have been HONEST ENOUGH to quote the entire statement IN CONTEXT.

I didn't actually misquote you in any conceivable context, I just used your sentence premise to make a droll comment, and FWIW, you're original text in toto was recent and handily accessible via a quick scroll up or a click on the little blue carat box after your USERID...

<...>

What it means is that even if you don't have financial means, the people who make this BBS worthwhile might champion your cause pro-bono if you're a nice person.

I liked the erudite flow of my prior post, but perhaps should have formatted it like this:


IF you cannot afford good representation to defend yourself, YOU ARE TOTALLY FU#K#D.


You endear yourself to The Right People. :o

You could have a budding career in the media, no doubt.

More like a waning career in the media it seems of late. :(

Mulay El Raisuli
10-28-2010, 6:33 AM
Then there is Mr. Lautenberg who issued this report (http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/TerrorReport.102010.pdf) just a few days ago (same broken record from his prior ramblings). He wants government bureaucrats to be able to strip you of your gun rights whenever they think that you maybe/might be a "terrorist". Again, no judge or jury is involved.[/URL]).


OMG! Did he really use the words terror GAP? Was he afraid of the "Mineshaft GAP" as well?

Anyway, the primary lesson I got from his little screed was that the outlawing guns didn't help the citizens of Mumbai at all. Since the terrorists brought their own!

And also that by outlawing guns (and so making the citizens totally dependent upon the police) the citizens had no way to defend themselves against the invading force.

But Lautenberg is an ignorant tool & logic & facts clearly mean nothing to him.


The Raisuli