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.
The way that the current red flag laws are being used/written goes against another constitutional right to face your accuser. That and the thousands of dollars that will be spent on attorney fees in an attempt to recover any weapons that were taken under the guise of red flag laws.
For me personally, "shall not be infringed" means just that. The fact that the government is aware of each and every firearm that has been legally purchased is a crime in and of itself. The PA state police keep their own version of NIC system called PIC system which is beyond flawed and also another illegal gun registry and PA's version of the 2nd amendment is worded even stronger than the US Constitution's: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and yet the PA legislators do their damnedest to overrule it. To complicate matters even further, the PA Game Commission has rules and regulations that contradict one another and the Constitution and they can pick and choose which regulation to use to suit their needs. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what the game commission does but the contradictory rules are a joke.
When you restrict one person, others lose their rights as well. Keep in mind that the red flag laws and all other ploys are nothing more than gun confiscation and the disarmament of the American people. We either have God-given rights or we do not. Which is it?
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?
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.
The way that the current red flag laws are being used/written goes against another constitutional right to face your accuser. That and the thousands of dollars that will be spent on attorney fees in an attempt to recover any weapons that were taken under the guise of red flag laws.
For me personally, "shall not be infringed" means just that. The fact that the government is aware of each and every firearm that has been legally purchased is a crime in and of itself. The PA state police keep their own version of NIC system called PIC system which is beyond flawed and also another illegal gun registry and PA's version of the 2nd amendment is worded even stronger than the US Constitution's: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and yet the PA legislators do their damnedest to overrule it. To complicate matters even further, the PA Game Commission has rules and regulations that contradict one another and the Constitution and they can pick and choose which regulation to use to suit their needs. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what the game commission does but the contradictory rules are a joke.
When you restrict one person, others lose their rights as well. Keep in mind that the red flag laws and all other ploys are nothing more than gun confiscation and the disarmament of the American people. We either have God-given rights or we do not. Which is it?
Angels point is right on. No meat? Angel clearly said you leave them in prison if theybare violent. Don't let them walk among the free.
You are dead wrong.
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.
Lol nobody is that stupid….hellooo 2020
Your posts are always a pleasure, sleepydude.
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...