Alphecca

IMHO, if we as a society cannot trust a person with a firearm, we shouldn't trust him/her walking around free.

I know that's an extreme opinion, but I very strongly believe that anyone who has served his/her time should be able to defend his/her family and own life. Of course, those people who prove to be unwilling to be a responsible member of society should be trusted with neither a gun nor their freedom. As you well know, someone committing a violent crime isn’t going to worry about the legality obtaining a gun, and so all these laws really do is disarm truly reformed individuals.

I have advocate Tom's position for a while now.

If we allow the government the authority to determin who can exercise a right, and under what conditions, we have handed over the power to destroy that right.

How long before a parking ticket could be used as proof of anti-social behaviour that should abrogate a right to a gun? Or to speech, travel, etc., for that matter.

This whole domestic violence thing is BS. It is well-known that there is an extremely high percentage of false accusations in an acrimonious break up. One may be inclined to accept a misdemeanor to avoid going bankrupt fighting the allegation.

The law on this issue is just a subtle gun control ploy--who isn't against taking guns away from a wife beater? Sounds compassionate, but the practical effect of this "common sense" gun control measure is must different.

I'm with Tom, what next, an interview as a prerequisite to gun ownership, asking if you have ever consumed more than 6 beers in one evening? If you have, well you might take your gun out and hurt someone, so you are banned from ownership. Ever been in a fight? Well you show a propensity for violence so no gun for you. Just give them time, they will come up with all kinds of reasons why you can't own, musch less carry.

Even though I don't really like it, I'd rather see them bring back the 'He needed killing' defense than have this sort of BS.

As noted, you can either trust someone or you can't. Yes, there are levels of trust - we all know guys that we'd trust with our lives but not with our sisters.

What is gained by restricting an ex-con from owning a firearm?

If they are inclined to break the law surely they will break the law restricting them from owning a firearm.

They are not restricted from driving; owning a axe, chainsaw, claw hammer, any of these items can be used to inflict harm on others.

The justice system has judged these people to be worthy to be released among us, they have served their time, why should we deny them their rights guaranteed under the 2nd amendment?

They have the same divine right to protect themselves as I, the law restricting ex-cons is wrong, and based solely on fear.

Having said that, no politician would EVER touch the prior restraint laws with a ten foot pole. All it would take is one recidivist scumbag to end that politician’s career. Based on that, the law will NEVER be abolished.

"... what next, an interview as a prerequisite to gun ownership, asking if you have ever consumed more than 6 beers in one evening? If you have, well you might take your gun out and hurt someone, so you are banned from ownership. Ever been in a fight? Well you show a propensity for violence so no gun for you. Just give them time, they will come up with all kinds of reasons why you can't own, musch less carry.
Posted by Ron at May 11, 2006 01:01 PM "

Ron,

Check out the requirements for having a license to OWN ANY firearm in MA. From the Gun Owners Action League in MA:
-------------------------
"A (firearms ID)Card will be refused to a person who:
· has ever been convicted of a violent crime or a violation of any drug law;
· within the last five years has been convicted of, or released from confinement,
probation or parole for: a felony, adjudicated a youthful offender, a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment for more than two years (includes OUI after July 1994), or
a violation of any gun law for which a sentence could be imposed;1
· has been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness, or under treatment or
confinement for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness, unless you submit an affidavit
from a physician;
· is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction;
· is an alien;
· is under the age of 15 (or between 15 and 18 without written parental consent);
· is not a resident of the Commonwealth; or
· is the subject of a restraining order."

-------------------------

All the items you mention are here NOW.

Just thought you should know.

Raising your voice to a women is "domestic violence." It is actionable. If she says her feelings where hurt you get to go to jail.

Restraining orders are easy to get. They are done by a judge who does not allow the accused to defend themselves in court.

Either of those lose you your Second Amendment rights.

The Emerson decision from a few years back. A guy in Texas was getting a divorce. Wife made a false claim of abuse. Guy loses his Second Amendment rights. Appeals all the was to the Supreme Court. Court says he can't have his rights back even though his wife was a lying fraud.

Thank you feminazis!

When the government gets to decide who can and who can't exercise their rights, you have no rights.

What troubles me is the trend to turn minor misdemeanors into felonies.

In Emmerson's case the felony was upheld bc the predicate order was valid, though minimally so. Tim would have been safe if he had kept himself gun free till the restraining order expired or was quashed.

I'm uncomfortable with felons having guns but agree that if we are safe? with them being released we should be safe with them having guns. I would demand much higher standards for ccw though.

Remember any felon can appeal to the batf for restoration of gun rights now though batf refuses to hear appeals for lack of funding!

Ah, 1894C, I am well-aware of the MA law. I am a holder of a Class A, but I threw out my rant for all those folks who actually live in the US (as op to the PRM).

IMHO, if a person has served their time, paid their fines, finished their probation, all human rights should be recognized as fully restored.

Jeff,

If one is does not have an inclination towards violence, one should not own a gun for the purposes of self-defense.

For I will be inclined to be extremely violent to any miscreant who would break into my home or acost me in public.

My guns serve a purpose other than mere entertainment.

As to the preceeding comments, "++++", and etc. The domestic violence clause is a feminist anti-gun scam. And since when have rights been held forfiet for a mere misdemeanor?

I wonder if there is any way to construct a pre-emptive, gun-protective clause into a prenup?

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX