Convicted felons serving time in jail shouldn't have access to guns or any armaments for that matter. They'd shoot the guards and escape.
When they get out of jail, then we'll talk about them having their guns back.
Likewise, I believe there should always be a pathway for a law-abiding citizen to practice their rights, even if they were once a felon and no matter the crime. The first step to encouraging people to successfully reform is to offer them everything they had before they made whatever poor decisions led them to get convicted.
Remember, its KEEP and BEAR arms. That's actually two rights. The right to the property of a firearm as well as the right to use it. When you're in jail for something like a white-collar tax crime, you should only lose the right to BEAR arms. There's no reason to take away the right to KEEP arms.
But, if you're convicted of a crime with a deadly weapon, then yeah, take the guns away and give them back only when the person proves they are reformed. Finally, let States decide when that will be, not the Federal Government.
Is this a nuanced approach? Sure, but I can be Hyper-Pro-2A and against certain people having guns at the same time. For instance, I don't think the Federal Government outside the military should be able to practice their 2A right to bear arms. Effectively, I would have it so the FBI and CIA shouldn't have access to firearms unless they are working in conjunction with State or Foreign police.
Well yeah in jail they don't have guns. You may not want a felon to have a gun but technically, on the street, they're entitled to self defense too. If someone has proven they are dangerous with a gun, put em away and throw away the key, they don't deserve to walk among the free. There are many felons who have never assaulted anyone and aren't dangerous, you know like dwi felons. It's ridiculous they lose their right to carry because of a traffic ticket.
I understand where you're coming from, but your stance has no meat to include in the rule of law.
You need hard limits, definitions, terms, and classes for who can and can't have a gun.
I agree, only violent felons who have been convicted should have their guns taken away.
But you have to specify -- who decides "If someone has proven they are dangerous with a gun"?
Red Flag Laws say anyone who says mean things online has proven they are too dangerous with a gun. So now we need to specify what "dangerous with a gun" means as well as "too dangerous with a gun."
That's why this crap is difficult legally.
Even people who aren't felons should have certain restrictions to their 2A rights. For example, I'm pretty sure everyone wouldn't want someone swinging around a gun at a playground crawling with kids.
Does the charge of Recklessness mean he gets his gun taken away? I mean, it can be a felony, but he didn't kill anyone or intend to kill anyone, he was just reckless, so... Should he still keep his gun even if he is convicted?
I know I'm splitting hairs here, but that's the gist. Once you say "everyone should have guns all the time for any reason" it begins a long train of "but what about X, and what about Y, and what about Z"?
My stance is the simplest I can see to resolve that never-ending train of exceptions, particularly this one:
If the Government decides what a felony is, then can't they just charge me with a felony for some BS charges and then take my guns away? Since I'm a convicted felon, doesn't that mean I never can get my guns back, even if I was wrongly convicted?
That's why I think no matter what your crime was, there should be an avenue to get back the rights that you lost because of your conviction.
Convicted felons serving time in jail shouldn't have access to guns or any armaments for that matter. They'd shoot the guards and escape.
When they get out of jail, then we'll talk about them having their guns back.
You forgot to put "Kidding aside,..." after that. Please tell us you don't actually think the anon was actually advocating letting felons serving time in jail have guns. Nobody is that stupid. Are they?
What happens if claiming the election was stolen becomes a felony crime? What happens if visiting evil russian Qannon disinformation sites is a felony crime? What happens if it is considered domestic terrorism or even treason? Just stick with "shall not be infringe" staying "shall not be infringed" instead of trying to justify only the people you don't like losing their God given rights.
I think everyone should be able to Constitutionally carry--no permit, just carry the weapon and use it as needed. That may be worn openly instead of concealed. Kind of like the old west shows.
That seems to me to be a correct statement. I suggested we be like the western TV shows where you openly wear and carry. If you notice, especially in Maryland, I see a lot of plain clothes policemen with their weapons being worn openly and their badge being in very close proximity to their weapon, When I say plain clothes, I mean in shorts, wearing khakis and pullover shirts (no police insignia), and sometimes in a shirt and tie with dress pants. I don't think police should be able to do this unless all citizens are allowed to openly wear and carry. Who can tell the difference if they have their back to you and you see, on their right or left side, a handgun? Very bad professionalism on the police officers--in my estimation.
Boy... And they're all wrong.
This doesn't mean Universal Conceal Carry.
It just means the State can't make special rules for who can and can't get a Conceal Carry License.
You still gotta get the License.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of Universal Conceal Carry for non-felons, but hot damn they are just off base sperging right now.
Shall NOT be infringed. Gun ownership shouldn’t be restricted to non-felons (or to over 18s for that matter).
Legally, that can't work.
Convicted felons serving time in jail shouldn't have access to guns or any armaments for that matter. They'd shoot the guards and escape.
When they get out of jail, then we'll talk about them having their guns back.
Likewise, I believe there should always be a pathway for a law-abiding citizen to practice their rights, even if they were once a felon and no matter the crime. The first step to encouraging people to successfully reform is to offer them everything they had before they made whatever poor decisions led them to get convicted.
Remember, its KEEP and BEAR arms. That's actually two rights. The right to the property of a firearm as well as the right to use it. When you're in jail for something like a white-collar tax crime, you should only lose the right to BEAR arms. There's no reason to take away the right to KEEP arms.
But, if you're convicted of a crime with a deadly weapon, then yeah, take the guns away and give them back only when the person proves they are reformed. Finally, let States decide when that will be, not the Federal Government.
Is this a nuanced approach? Sure, but I can be Hyper-Pro-2A and against certain people having guns at the same time. For instance, I don't think the Federal Government outside the military should be able to practice their 2A right to bear arms. Effectively, I would have it so the FBI and CIA shouldn't have access to firearms unless they are working in conjunction with State or Foreign police.
Well yeah in jail they don't have guns. You may not want a felon to have a gun but technically, on the street, they're entitled to self defense too. If someone has proven they are dangerous with a gun, put em away and throw away the key, they don't deserve to walk among the free. There are many felons who have never assaulted anyone and aren't dangerous, you know like dwi felons. It's ridiculous they lose their right to carry because of a traffic ticket.
I understand where you're coming from, but your stance has no meat to include in the rule of law.
You need hard limits, definitions, terms, and classes for who can and can't have a gun.
I agree, only violent felons who have been convicted should have their guns taken away.
But you have to specify -- who decides "If someone has proven they are dangerous with a gun"?
Red Flag Laws say anyone who says mean things online has proven they are too dangerous with a gun. So now we need to specify what "dangerous with a gun" means as well as "too dangerous with a gun."
That's why this crap is difficult legally.
Even people who aren't felons should have certain restrictions to their 2A rights. For example, I'm pretty sure everyone wouldn't want someone swinging around a gun at a playground crawling with kids.
Does the charge of Recklessness mean he gets his gun taken away? I mean, it can be a felony, but he didn't kill anyone or intend to kill anyone, he was just reckless, so... Should he still keep his gun even if he is convicted?
I know I'm splitting hairs here, but that's the gist. Once you say "everyone should have guns all the time for any reason" it begins a long train of "but what about X, and what about Y, and what about Z"?
My stance is the simplest I can see to resolve that never-ending train of exceptions, particularly this one:
That's why I think no matter what your crime was, there should be an avenue to get back the rights that you lost because of your conviction.
Angel, I'm with you.
You forgot to put "Kidding aside,..." after that. Please tell us you don't actually think the anon was actually advocating letting felons serving time in jail have guns. Nobody is that stupid. Are they?
Judges, Lawyers, and Lawmakers are absolutely that stupid.
If it isn't written in the letter of the law, it doesn't exist to them.
You have to spell things out CLEARLY and with no loopholes someone can exploit.
Common sense DOES NOT EXIST inside a courtroom.
If a person who did their time is to violent to trust with a gun, then they didnt do enough time.
If they are a murderer, they likely should be put to death instead of released into the public with a bunch of weak rules.
Correct...and not to mention I thought "they" were all for the courts making "laws." Guess Kieth doesn't think Roe v Wade should be enforced...
What happens if claiming the election was stolen becomes a felony crime? What happens if visiting evil russian Qannon disinformation sites is a felony crime? What happens if it is considered domestic terrorism or even treason? Just stick with "shall not be infringe" staying "shall not be infringed" instead of trying to justify only the people you don't like losing their God given rights.
sperging????
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sperging%20out
Kek, pretty much like listening to Jen Psaki or her replacement or Camela Harris or pretty much everybody in the Xiden admin!
I think everyone should be able to Constitutionally carry--no permit, just carry the weapon and use it as needed. That may be worn openly instead of concealed. Kind of like the old west shows.
But the concealed requirement would change your right to choose how to bear…no restrictions in the 2A wording.
That seems to me to be a correct statement. I suggested we be like the western TV shows where you openly wear and carry. If you notice, especially in Maryland, I see a lot of plain clothes policemen with their weapons being worn openly and their badge being in very close proximity to their weapon, When I say plain clothes, I mean in shorts, wearing khakis and pullover shirts (no police insignia), and sometimes in a shirt and tie with dress pants. I don't think police should be able to do this unless all citizens are allowed to openly wear and carry. Who can tell the difference if they have their back to you and you see, on their right or left side, a handgun? Very bad professionalism on the police officers--in my estimation.
No it means carry….you can’t “bear” an arm that’s home in your safe.