PDA

View Full Version : When the 2A is abused


Heiko
01-28-2011, 11:19 AM
This idiot claimed that the Second Amendment (and Heller) gave him the unalienable right to have a gun in his home... while trafficking in narcotics.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/26/09-30266.pdf

An argument like this by a drug dealer who armed himself for the purposes of his illegal activity is an affront to all law abiding gun owners and an abuse of the Second Amendment.

Needless to say, he loses.

Dr Rockso
01-28-2011, 11:26 AM
And the Bradys put another tally in the column "court upholds reasonable gun control legislation despite Heller".

stix213
01-28-2011, 11:54 AM
I do support banning felons from gun possession. Sorry felons

Coded-Dude
01-28-2011, 11:58 AM
I do support banning VIOLENT felons from gun possession. Sorry felons

fixed it with my take on it......

GaryV
01-28-2011, 12:21 PM
This idiot claimed that the Second Amendment (and Heller) gave him the unalienable right to have a gun in his home... while trafficking in narcotics.

Personally, I don't have a problem with this concept. I don't see any exception listed in the 2nd Amendment that says "...except when doing something else the government has banned".

I'm not condoning his illegal activity, but when you say that he had the gun for no other purpose than to further his criminal enterprise, you're just pulling that out of your posterior. You have no idea whatsoever what his purpose was. He might have had the gun for years before he ever got involved in drugs, for all you know. He probably didn't, but you don't know that.

Personally, I think bans on felons having guns, even while committing a crime, is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. You can't be charged for something you say while committing a crime, unless it's directly in the furtherance of the crime, and I don't see why the same shouldn't be true with possessing a gun. If we're going to say that it's a right, then it needs to actually be a right that is always protected until the actual exercise of the right itself is done in a criminal manner.

Let's be honest. We all know that these laws, just like every other gun law, are completely worthless when it comes to keeping felons from having guns. Why is a completely worthless gun law that doesn't affect most of us okay when every other worthless gun law is an abomination? Are we really so wishy-washy on the 2nd Amendment that we really only care about violations that inconvenience us?

If a felon is not using a gun in a criminal fashion, I don't think his/her mere possession of it should be any less protected than anyone else's. If he/she is using it in a criminal fashion, then it's already a crime for which he/she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and there's no need or reason to further criminalize a constitutionally protected right. Any other interpretation basically says that the 2nd Amendment ceases to exist the moment you are doing something of which the government doesn't approve. As the list of "felonies" grows, the activities during which gun possession is legal then simply decreases.

Dr Rockso
01-28-2011, 12:26 PM
I do support banning felons from gun possession. Sorry felons

In case that comment was directed at mine, I was being facetious. Alan Gura was on a podcast yesterday for CATO and was talking about how everybody charged with any gun crime (the majority of which are legitimately criminals, the kind that actually victimize people) is going for Hail Mary 2A defenses, which tend to make for bad case law for the rest of us. It also allows the Bradys to plaster that annoying statastic about how Heller is meaningless since there have been thousands of challenges to 'commonsense' gun laws with the court upholding almost all of them.

madjack956
01-28-2011, 12:28 PM
Personally, I don't have a problem with this concept. I don't see any exception listed in the 2nd Amendment that says "...except when doing something else the government has banned".

I'm not condoning his illegal activity, but when you say that he had the gun for no other purpose than to further his criminal enterprise, you're just pulling that out of your posterior. You have no idea whatsoever what his purpose was. He might have had the gun for years before he ever got involved in drugs, for all you know. He probably didn't, but you don't know that.

Personally, I think bans on felons having guns, even while committing a crime, is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. You can't be charged for something you say while committing a crime, unless it's directly in the furtherance of the crime, and I don't see why the same shouldn't be true with possessing a gun. If we're going to say that it's a right, then it needs to actually be a right that is always protected until the actual exercise of the right itself is done in a criminal manner.

Let's be honest. We all know that these laws, just like every other gun law, are completely worthless when it comes to keeping felons from having guns. Why is a completely worthless gun law that doesn't affect most of us okay when every other worthless gun law is an abomination? Are we really so wishy-washy on the 2nd Amendment that we really only care about violations that inconvenience us?

If a felon is not using a gun in a criminal fashion, I don't think his/her mere possession of it should be any less protected than anyone else's. If he/she is using it in a criminal fashion, then it's already a crime for which he/she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and there's no need or reason to further criminalize a constitutionally protected right. Any other interpretation basically says that the 2nd Amendment ceases to exist the moment you are doing something of which the government doesn't approve. As the list of "felonies" grows, the activities during which gun possession is legal then simply decreases.

Bravo!

kcbrown
01-28-2011, 12:34 PM
I can't help but laugh when people say that now that we've won Heller and McDonald, we suddenly have the right to keep and bear arms. We have no such thing, and this discussion proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.

No, what we have is a protected privilege. It's not even a terribly well protected privilege. It's a privilege because you will lose it, permanently, if you happen to do something the state doesn't like (as implemented via the law).

If it were a right then you'd retain it even if you did something the state doesn't like (except during the terms of your sentence, of course). Your right to free speech really is a right by that metric, because you retain it even after you've served a prison sentence.


Not so with the "right" to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry, but to call such a thing a "right" is a cynical joke of the worst sort. Your "right" to vote isn't a right. It's a protected privilege. The same thing is true of your "right" to keep and bear arms.

That needs to change.

stix213
01-28-2011, 12:37 PM
In case that comment was directed at mine, I was being facetious. Alan Gura was on a podcast yesterday for CATO and was talking about how everybody charged with any gun crime (the majority of which are legitimately criminals, the kind that actually victimize people) is going for Hail Mary 2A defenses, which tend to make for bad case law for the rest of us. It also allows the Bradys to plaster that annoying statastic about how Heller is meaningless since there have been thousands of challenges to 'commonsense' gun laws with the court upholding almost all of them.

My comment was general, not directed at yours.

N6ATF
01-28-2011, 1:01 PM
I do support banning felons free men/women from gun possession effective self-defense. Sorry felonsEX-cons, you get the death sentence by disarmament if anyone wants to murder you

Fixed with my take on it.

Coded-Dude
01-28-2011, 1:07 PM
I wonder what the statistic is on violent felons getting out of jail and going right back in for more violent crimes. Not saying a law that keeps guns out of their hands would stop them, but I guess thats the point right?

kcbrown
01-28-2011, 1:34 PM
I wonder what the statistic is on violent felons getting out of jail and going right back in for more violent crimes. Not saying a law that keeps guns out of their hands would stop them, but I guess thats the point right?

Yep.

If you apply that argument to criminals, you can equally apply it to ex-cons.

The goal should be maximum armament of the law-abiding. You can't accomplish that except through removal of all restrictions in law. Prison inmates are the only people who should be forcibly stripped of their right to keep and bear arms.

A criminal is a criminal, whether or not they were a law-abiding citizen before. A law-abiding citizen is a law-abiding citizen, whether or not they were a criminal before. By stripping RKBA from all ex-criminals, you strip at least some law-abiding citizens of their RKBA, while having no real effect on the ones that are intent on remaining criminals.


This article (http://www.protell.ch/cms/images/stories/dokumente/publikationen/8.1.001e.pdf) is an interesting examination of the contrast between a well-armed society in the past and that same society that is now completely disarmed. It's interesting to note that in the past, the expectation that a person was armed was immensely high, and a very high percentage of people were apparently armed. That is what we need to return to.

creekside
01-28-2011, 1:36 PM
This idiot claimed that the First Amendment gave him the unalienable right to have the magazine High Times (http://www.hightimes.com/) in his home ... while trafficking in narcotics.

An argument like this by a drug dealer who bought drug-related magazines for the purposes of his illegal activity is an affront to all law abiding book owners and an abuse of the First Amendment.

bruss01
01-28-2011, 1:36 PM
I do support banning VIOLENT felons from gun possession. Sorry felons

fixed it with my take on it......

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

jtmkinsd
01-28-2011, 1:36 PM
fixed it with my take on it......

Is a drug dealer a "violent felon"?

QQQ
01-28-2011, 2:41 PM
GaryV got it right.

If a murderer breaks the law by shooting someone while robbing them, he should be charged with robbery and shooting the person.

Not for having a gun.

Coded-Dude
01-28-2011, 2:46 PM
should he then be allowed to possess a gun after he gets done with his time?

QQQ
01-28-2011, 2:50 PM
should he then be allowed to possess a gun after he gets done with his time?

No person whom society trusts to be on the streets should be denied the RKBA.

So if he isn't to be trusted with a firearm, he shouldn't be free to walk around. Remember, guns don't kill- people do.

Don29palms
01-28-2011, 2:50 PM
There's only one way to stop repeat offenders and that is make it so they can't repeat permanently!

"Come over here sir and have a seat. The switch will be thrown shortly."

You can't stop criminals. Criminals will always illegally have guns. The best you can hope for is they will get caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law. We all must be able to protect ourselves.

Coded-Dude
01-28-2011, 2:54 PM
There's only one way to stop repeat offenders and that is make it so they can't repeat permanently!

SNIP

Yes this is the saddest part about our society. We let people who repeatedly commit acts of heinous violence continue to walk the streets because its cruel and unusual to give them a taste of their own medicine.

No person whom society trusts to be on the streets should be denied the RKBA.

So if he isn't to be trusted with a firearm, he shouldn't be free to walk around. Remember, guns don't kill- people do.

I don't trust society's judgment anymore than I trust the judgement of a hungry lion to not eat me.

AJAX22
01-28-2011, 2:57 PM
Your right to self defense is inalienable

drug dealers have guns because they are very often victimized by violent criminals, they have no ability to call the police or to resort to tort law to enforce contracts.

I've known drug dealers and seeing how the market interacted with their use of firearms was quite illuminating.

They are not inherently violent or predatory. most have firearms for defensive reasons not offensive reasons.

Criminalize the act of harming an individual, NOT the act of owning/selling'ingesting an inanimate object.

QQQ
01-28-2011, 2:57 PM
I don't trust society's judgment anymore than I trust the judgement of a hungry lion to not eat me.

I'm on the same page as you with this one, which is why I don't think society should be able to determine whether a free man should be allowed to arm and defend himself.

Don29palms
01-28-2011, 3:00 PM
Yes this is the saddest part about our society. We let people who repeatedly commit acts of heinous violence continue to walk the streets because its cruel and unusual to give them a taste of their own medicine.

What bothers me the most is the people that want to take away my ability to protect my family and myself are the same people that believe we are being to hard on criminals. They never bother on trying to deal with the crime because just owning a gun is a crime in their minds.

Librarian
01-28-2011, 3:19 PM
I wonder what the statistic is on violent felons getting out of jail and going right back in for more violent crimes. Not saying a law that keeps guns out of their hands would stop them, but I guess thats the point right?

I don't know why the latest data is 1994, but ...
Recidivism is measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release.

Summary findings

* During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration. This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.
* Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.
* Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
* These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
* Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
* Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

Coded-Dude
01-28-2011, 3:35 PM
this why why the old saying: "bullets are cheaper than a prison sentence" should come back..........

stix213
01-28-2011, 3:50 PM
No person whom society trusts to be on the streets should be denied the RKBA.

So if he isn't to be trusted with a firearm, he shouldn't be free to walk around. Remember, guns don't kill- people do.

Felons aren't released because society trusts them. Criminals are being released by the tens of thousands due to nothing but financial reasons right now. In a perfect world where a prison sentence was based less on the whims of the CA state budget, and more on when they actually deserve to be released, then I might be in agreement with QQQ. But that's clearly not reality in this state.

kcbrown
01-28-2011, 4:01 PM
this why why the old saying: "bullets are cheaper than a prison sentence" should come back..........

Lemme get this straight.

You want to give legitimate power to kill people to a government that you already distrust?

Are you nuts?


I have no problem with sticking these violent offenders in the slammer for life. But killing them? No. There is no possible way to undo that action in the event the person in question turns out to be innocent after all.

And yes, there have been quite a number of such people, even on death row. If the state can get it wrong with respect to people who wind up on death row, where the protections against such mistakes are supposedly the greatest, how much more wrong do you think it's likely they get it with respect to people whose convictions aren't as severe?


No, the best defense against these criminals by far is a well-armed population of law-abiding citizens.

CalBear
01-28-2011, 4:04 PM
The 2A says the RKBA shall not be infringed. The language is very strong, but the judicial precedent is reasonable restrictions on Constitution rights. In addition, RKBA has only applied to certain groups through our history. It didn't apply to Blacks until after the civil war, and felons have been restricted from arms as well. During the Revolutionary War, patriots in some areas disarmed those unwilling to pledge their allegiance to the cause. Point is, the RKBA is easily one of the strongest rights retained, and the founders wanted it that way -- they saw self defense as the first natural right of man, but certain groups have been excepted from the start.

I think most other restrictions, such as time and place restrictions, are flat out unconstitutional, but it may take a while (if ever) for that to be ruled. I think history based restrictions -- drugs, mental problems, violent crimes, etc. will always be used.

I'm OK with violent felons being prohibited, but seeing how our state is constantly expanding the list of felonies, I don't agree that all felonies should lead to a lifetime ban.

Heiko
01-28-2011, 4:09 PM
Personally, I don't have a problem with this concept. I don't see any exception listed in the 2nd Amendment that says "...except when doing something else the government has banned".

I'm not condoning his illegal activity, but when you say that he had the gun for no other purpose than to further his criminal enterprise, you're just pulling that out of your posterior. You have no idea whatsoever what his purpose was. He might have had the gun for years before he ever got involved in drugs, for all you know. He probably didn't, but you don't know that.

Personally, I think bans on felons having guns, even while committing a crime, is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. You can't be charged for something you say while committing a crime, unless it's directly in the furtherance of the crime, and I don't see why the same shouldn't be true with possessing a gun. If we're going to say that it's a right, then it needs to actually be a right that is always protected until the actual exercise of the right itself is done in a criminal manner.

Let's be honest. We all know that these laws, just like every other gun law, are completely worthless when it comes to keeping felons from having guns. Why is a completely worthless gun law that doesn't affect most of us okay when every other worthless gun law is an abomination? Are we really so wishy-washy on the 2nd Amendment that we really only care about violations that inconvenience us?

If a felon is not using a gun in a criminal fashion, I don't think his/her mere possession of it should be any less protected than anyone else's. If he/she is using it in a criminal fashion, then it's already a crime for which he/she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and there's no need or reason to further criminalize a constitutionally protected right. Any other interpretation basically says that the 2nd Amendment ceases to exist the moment you are doing something of which the government doesn't approve. As the list of "felonies" grows, the activities during which gun possession is legal then simply decreases.


See California Health & Safety Code Section 11370.1. It is a felony to be armed while in possession of narcotics for sale. The firearm must be readily available for offensive or defensive use. A drug dealer who has a loaded gun with his stash of dope would obviously fall into this catagory. If the gun is unloaded and locked away in an entirely seperate part of the house where dope was found would not. More on that below.

If a person is forging checks and making fake IDs in his house and happens to have a gun, and if he is not otherwise prohibited from gun ownership, there is no additional charge for the gun. No harm, no foul. If that person is otherwise prohibited, like a convicted felon or prior domestic violence conviction or restraining order, then he's in trouble for the gun. My point is that it is not ALL cases where a crime is being commited and a gun is around that there is a criminal charge that goes with it.

My problem with the guy's argument is that it creates a perception by the uninformed general public that it is those kinds of people that argue in favor of the 2A. This same uninformed public then think that the 2A is only there to protect criminal drug dealers. No matter what your analysis of whether drug dealers enjoy a 2A right, this battle is one that is fought in public opinion and as such, convicted felons who argue for 2A protection do us, the law abiding and informed gun owner population, a huge disservice. The uninformed public then associate the 2A with criminals, criminal possession of firearms, and all that bad stuff while forgetting that people like us.

This idiot claimed that the First Amendment gave him the unalienable right to have the magazine High Times (http://www.hightimes.com/) in his home ... while trafficking in narcotics.

An argument like this by a drug dealer who bought drug-related magazines for the purposes of his illegal activity is an affront to all law abiding book owners and an abuse of the First Amendment.

That's not at all what my statement is analogous to. A copy of "High Times" cannot kill law enforcement there to investigate or make and arrest nor can it be used to defend the dealer's stash from a "dope rip" and a stray page of the magazine can't accidentally strike and kill an innocent neighbor.

I cited H&S 11307.1 earlier. That is a seperate crime for drug dealers who arm themselves for the purposes of protecting themselves from other drug dealers or other criminals. Do these drug dealers have a right to self defense? Yes, in certain circumstances but not while in the course of committing a felony. The reason for criminlazing gun possession in these cases is because dope dealers who have guns for protection could use the guns to kill cops or innocent bystanders could get hurt in the event the dealer has to "protect" himself because he is a target as a drug dealer.

Too bad for him. He's not you or me who might keep a gun handy at home to defend against intruders. He's a guy who has to arm himself because he is engaging in an illegal activity that is inherently risky to life and limb. That is quite different and he forfeits his right to be armed if it's to further his criminal conduct, which being "strapped" does.

Coded-Dude
01-28-2011, 4:18 PM
Lemme get this straight.

You want to give legitimate power to kill people to a government that you already distrust?

Are you nuts?


I have no problem with sticking these violent offenders in the slammer for life. But killing them? No. There is no possible way to undo that action in the event the person in question turns out to be innocent after all.

And yes, there have been quite a number of such people, even on death row. If the state can get it wrong with respect to people who wind up on death row, where the protections against such mistakes are supposedly the greatest, how much more wrong do you think it's likely they get it with respect to people whose convictions aren't as severe?


No, the best defense against these criminals by far is a well-armed population of law-abiding citizens.

I am mostly referring to violent criminals caught in the act of their crime.

Lets turn this around for a second..... Are you saying that you'd rather judge, jury, and executioner be the armed people that claim they caught the suspected perpetrator in the act?

I'm not trying to argue that arming more people won't create a more polite and safe society, but it does have the potential of increasing the volume of vigilante justice(at least until we thin out the bad guys).

I'm all for personal freedom and responsibility, but in today's society(lazy, complacent, and dependent citizens) its a tough sell. The sheeple need their safeguards against their unwillingness to act.

kcbrown
01-28-2011, 4:27 PM
I am mostly referring to violent criminals caught in the act of their crime.

Lets turn this around for a second..... Are you saying that you'd rather judge, jury, and executioner be the armed people that claim they caught the suspected perpetrator in the act?


In the general case, where we're talking about the armed person being the typical good guy law-abiding citizen? Hell, yes.

Will there be some abuse of that? You betcha. Taking care of that is what law enforcement and the courts are for.



I'm not trying to argue that arming more people won't create a more polite and safe society, but it does have the potential of increasing the volume of vigilante justice(at least until we thin out the bad guys).
That may be the case, but I'd vastly prefer that longer term outcome to one where the state gets to wield that power of life and death for its own purposes.



I'm all for personal freedom and responsibility, but in today's society(lazy, complacent, and dependent citizens) its a tough sell. The sheeple need their safeguards against their unwillingness to act.Then we need to work on the whole personal responsibility thing, yes?

If the sheeple are unwilling to act to protect themselves, then one could argue that they are fully deserving of what they get.

Every time I hear about someone claiming that they're afraid when some of the people around them may be armed, my first reaction is to want to tell them that if they're so afraid, then they should arm themselves.

N6ATF
01-28-2011, 5:22 PM
Arm yourself because no one else here will save you

Good advice.

GaryV
01-28-2011, 5:27 PM
See California Health & Safety Code Section 11370.1. It is a felony to be armed while in possession of narcotics for sale. The firearm must be readily available for offensive or defensive use. A drug dealer who has a loaded gun with his stash of dope would obviously fall into this catagory. If the gun is unloaded and locked away in an entirely seperate part of the house where dope was found would not. More on that below.

If a person is forging checks and making fake IDs in his house and happens to have a gun, and if he is not otherwise prohibited from gun ownership, there is no additional charge for the gun. No harm, no foul. If that person is otherwise prohibited, like a convicted felon or prior domestic violence conviction or restraining order, then he's in trouble for the gun. My point is that it is not ALL cases where a crime is being commited and a gun is around that there is a criminal charge that goes with it.

My problem with the guy's argument is that it creates a perception by the uninformed general public that it is those kinds of people that argue in favor of the 2A. This same uninformed public then think that the 2A is only there to protect criminal drug dealers. No matter what your analysis of whether drug dealers enjoy a 2A right, this battle is one that is fought in public opinion and as such, convicted felons who argue for 2A protection do us, the law abiding and informed gun owner population, a huge disservice. The uninformed public then associate the 2A with criminals, criminal possession of firearms, and all that bad stuff while forgetting that people like us.

I understand that not every crime committed while in possession of a gun triggers this law. But I don't think that possession should ever be a crime, even if you have the gun in your direct immediate control. Unless you are illegally threatening or attacking someone with it, why should it be a crime to possess a gun? Yes, it could be used to further a crime, but then so could a car, a phone, a computer, a watch, a pencil, or any number of other inanimate objects that have other lawful uses. Why aren't you charged with extra crimes when dealing drugs out of the front seat of a car, or when using a cell phone to coordinate with your lookout on the corner? Those would actually be uses of these items that significantly contribute to the furtherance of the crime, but still do not make the possession of the item a crime.

These laws are about linking guns to crime, which is precisely what we don't want. If we truly want to change the perception of the public about guns, we need to break that link in anti-gun logic that equates guns with crime. If we can get people to understand that charging someone with a whole separate crime just because they are carrying a gun, but not actually using it in a criminal fashion at all, is just as silly as charging them with an extra crime just because they have a cell phone in their pocket, then we will have actually made some progress. If we support such laws, then we're just reinforcing the perception that guns are somehow bad in and of themselves.

Heiko
01-28-2011, 7:32 PM
I understand that not every crime committed while in possession of a gun triggers this law. But I don't think that possession should ever be a crime, even if you have the gun in your direct immediate control. Unless you are illegally threatening or attacking someone with it, why should it be a crime to possess a gun? Yes, it could be used to further a crime, but then so could a car, a phone, a computer, a watch, a pencil, or any number of other inanimate objects that have other lawful uses. Why aren't you charged with extra crimes when dealing drugs out of the front seat of a car, or when using a cell phone to coordinate with your lookout on the corner? Those would actually be uses of these items that significantly contribute to the furtherance of the crime, but still do not make the possession of the item a crime.

These laws are about linking guns to crime, which is precisely what we don't want. If we truly want to change the perception of the public about guns, we need to break that link in anti-gun logic that equates guns with crime. If we can get people to understand that charging someone with a whole separate crime just because they are carrying a gun, but not actually using it in a criminal fashion at all, is just as silly as charging them with an extra crime just because they have a cell phone in their pocket, then we will have actually made some progress. If we support such laws, then we're just reinforcing the perception that guns are somehow bad in and of themselves.

I think we are in agreement that there is a tremendous amount of negative public perception when it comes to guns and treating guns, in an of themselves, as something almost radioactive only reinforces the public's opinion that guns are bad.

I do think that there is a place in the law where gun possession should be illegal. We may disagree on this one or the specific circumstances where it would be justified as a crime. (Someone previously convicted of a gun crime? A domestic violence conviction? Prior serious and violent crime like robbery?) With there being a place in the law for criminal possession of firearms I would go back to there needing to be concurrent positive efforts to show that criminals and criminal acts should be punished and it just happens that some criminals use guns but the vast majority of people who possess guns are law abiding.

I don't think we'll get away from certain kinds of criminal possession nor will we get away from the media reporting news about guns the way they do. That's an entirely different discussion! In the meantime I take every opportunity I get to inform people about how silly our politicians are and how asinine most of our gun laws are and how our gun rights are being infringed upon. I did that last night to a group of about 40 people participating in a police education class. :D

BigFatGuy
01-28-2011, 7:52 PM
You can't be charged for something you say while committing a crime, unless it's directly in the furtherance of the crime, and I don't see why the same shouldn't be true with possessing a gun.

Not that I disagree with your point, but this sentence is wrong AFAIK.

"I'm going to kill you you son-of-a-" is a crime.

"I'm going to kill you you (racial slur)" is a hate crime, which carries worse penalties.

OleCuss
01-28-2011, 8:13 PM
OK, things are getting distorted.

There is no such thing as an absolute right. That applies to the RKBA as it does to every other "right". There's also no reason to believe that those who wrote the Constitution thought of those rights as absolute either. But what we refer to as "rights" are sort of those things to which we are inherently entitled - presumably as bestowed by God.

No, you and I needn't believe in God but we have to understand the mindset they tended to share at the time and God was a part of that to a greater or lesser degree. This is true even if you consider some of those who voted on the Constitution to be atheist.

And there really isn't anyone on this forum who, upon closely examining the issue would really believe that the RKBA is absolute, for if that were the case the accused murderer would be packing heat during his trial and (after conviction) in prison.

And no, I'm not a lawyer so I may be saying this wrong, but I tend to think of a felon as someone who has broken faith with his/her fellow citizenry to the extent that they (in the form of an impartial jury of the defendant's peers) convict him/her of a felonious crime and send him/her to prison for an extended time period.

Now I think that in particular a violent felon should be prohibited from possessing firearms. One could argue that if they still have violent tendencies that they should not be out of prison and I'd not disagree with that assessment. Nevertheless, they are routinely let out of prison. When a violent felon is released one should consider being a prohibited person to be a part of their sentence - much as a parole with its restrictions is considered. IOW, their prison term may have ended but their punishment hasn't.

Of course, we all know that a violent felon intent on wreaking havoc is not likely to be deterred by being a prohibited person. But in that case it at least means that there is another felony with which they can be charged and in a state like Kalifornia having another felony to go toward their third strike is a significant benefit to the citizenry.

Upshot is that it's really not all that straightforward. Looking to US v Chester for guidance really does make quite a bit of good sense. It views the RKBA as a serious right but also acknowledges that it is not absolute.

And for those who are lawyers or more versed in the subject matter I submit the above for your correction.

rugershooter
01-28-2011, 8:13 PM
I can't help but laugh when people say that now that we've won Heller and McDonald, we suddenly have the right to keep and bear arms. We have no such thing, and this discussion proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.

No, what we have is a protected privilege. It's not even a terribly well protected privilege. It's a privilege because you will lose it, permanently, if you happen to do something the state doesn't like (as implemented via the law).

If it were a right then you'd retain it even if you did something the state doesn't like (except during the terms of your sentence, of course). Your right to free speech really is a right by that metric, because you retain it even after you've served a prison sentence.


Not so with the "right" to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry, but to call such a thing a "right" is a cynical joke of the worst sort. Your "right" to vote isn't a right. It's a protected privilege. The same thing is true of your "right" to keep and bear arms.

That needs to change.

I totally agree with you. Regardles of what people say, the 2A is not recognized as a right It's treated as a protected privilege. California doesn't recognize the right to arms, nor does the federal government recognize it. There are approximaltey 20,000 gun laws in the United States. It sure doesn't sound like it's recognized as a right. Even people who claim to be pro gun support background checks, restrictions on carrying guns, FA restrictions, etc.
Once a criminal has paid his debt to society, he should be a free man not someone under the oppression of the government restrictions on his freedom.
Commit a crime and you get punished. Once your punishment is over, as far as the government is concerned, you should not be treated any differently than any other citizen in terms of your rights.

GaryV
01-28-2011, 8:52 PM
I think we are in agreement that there is a tremendous amount of negative public perception when it comes to guns and treating guns, in an of themselves, as something almost radioactive only reinforces the public's opinion that guns are bad.

I do think that there is a place in the law where gun possession should be illegal. We may disagree on this one or the specific circumstances where it would be justified as a crime. (Someone previously convicted of a gun crime? A domestic violence conviction? Prior serious and violent crime like robbery?) With there being a place in the law for criminal possession of firearms I would go back to there needing to be concurrent positive efforts to show that criminals and criminal acts should be punished and it just happens that some criminals use guns but the vast majority of people who possess guns are law abiding.

I don't think we'll get away from certain kinds of criminal possession nor will we get away from the media reporting news about guns the way they do. That's an entirely different discussion! In the meantime I take every opportunity I get to inform people about how silly our politicians are and how asinine most of our gun laws are and how our gun rights are being infringed upon. I did that last night to a group of about 40 people participating in a police education class. :D

I agree that we'll probably never see the absolute abolition of all laws making simple gun possession a crime for some classes of people. Being realistic, that's just never going to happen. At the very least, 2nd Amendment advocates will have to throw the vile (violent felons, etc.) under the bus to get concessions from the anti-gun crowd.

I just personally can't support such laws, because the real logic behind them is that guns only have one purpose - to commit a crime. I've personally known convicted felons who have turned their lives around and lived exemplary lives as responsible and involved model citizens. I've also known one of these who died in federal prison simply because he felt a need to have a gun to protect himself from those who resented him for his conversion. So I tend to not accept the common belief that laws prohibiting one group of people or another from having guns, no matter how despicable the rest of us see them as a group, are good or even acceptable.

The way I see it is, if you are not in custody, where someone else at least in theory has responsibility for your safety, you have a right to self-defense, and therefore a right to effective means of self-defense. It doesn't matter what you have done or are doing, you still have rights. If you're breaking the law, then there are already crimes you can be charged with. There's no logical reason to add "weapons" charges, unless your goal is to demonize weapons. If you think the crime itself deserves a stiffer penalty, then just increase the penalty for the actual crime, don't use weapon possession to pile on extra punishment.