NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: Mntnman on July 08, 2014, 09:35:27 PM
-
What legal restrictions on firearms do YOU believe pass Constitutional muster?
Let's see where we stand, shall we?
-
What legal restrictions on firearms do YOU believe pass Constitutional muster?
Let's see where we stand, shall we?
In my view, the only persons that should not be allowed to possess firearms(or other weapons) for self defense should be those who are under indictment, are currenly incarcerated, on house arrest, or those on probation.
After all, if someone has "served their time", shouldn't they be considered free citizens once again?
-
"Shall not be infringed"=no legal restrictions
-
In my view, the only persons that should not be allowed to possess firearms(or other weapons) for self defense should be those who are under indictment, are currenly incarcerated, on house arrest, or those on probation.
After all, if someone has "served their time", shouldn't they be considered free citizens once again?
The big assumption there is that anyone actually serve their time anymore. Nebraska apparently cannot even calculate the time served correctly. Then factor in the rate of recidivism for certain crimes/criminals and I have never really lost any sleep over restrictions prohibiting felons from owning arms or voting.
-
In my view, the only persons that should not be allowed to possess firearms(or other weapons) for self defense should be those who are under indictment, are currenly incarcerated, on house arrest, or those on probation.
After all, if someone has "served their time", shouldn't they be considered free citizens once again?
Rick has it figured out! A guy has a felony theft charge or a drug charge that happened when he was a teenager......& he is FOREVER FORBIDDEN to protect himself & his family in the same way that we all deem necessary? Our zero tolerance one size fits all policy on that is B.S.....
Other than that....I think mag restrictions, bans on weapons based on appearance, city/state registrations, or 'may issue' permits are all infringements!
Based on my interpretation..... Omaha & Lincoln are For Sure violating not only the 2nd Amendment but the Nebraska Constitution with their registration schemes & other shenanigans!
No offense to anyone living In either town, but when we start looking to move in the next year or so....I would never consider moving from the outskirts of Omaha into the city limits in a million years...! & I was born & raised in Omaha....guess I'm just a city boy who became a libertarian & now I don't want to be able to see my neighbors house!
-
In the 30's, our grandfathers blew it, allowing the gov to limit our access to certain firearms.
Why did the good citizens all across the USA loose gun rights? Because of the lawless gangs in Chicago and NYNY.
The gun control acts of the 30's need to be repealed, and all of them from that time, till now.
I'm free in 2016 for 4 years, if anyone wants a big uncle in the White House. lol
-
In my view, the only persons that should not be allowed to possess firearms(or other weapons) for self defense should be those who are under indictment, are currenly incarcerated, on house arrest, or those on probation.
After all, if someone has "served their time", shouldn't they be considered free citizens once again?
I also have issue with someone that has served their time not having their rights restored. Someone that has been incarcerated probably has more reason to fear attack than somebody that hasn't. I do realize that it presents the very real possibility that someone dangerous would have access to a deadly weapon, but being illegal obviously won't stop them, either.
I have a friend that was in the back seat of a car, intoxicated, at 18 years old when the people he was with decided to rob a convenience store. He served time. He applied for and was granted amnesty after the required amount of time passed. He is one of the few people that I would trust to watch my kids. I even got the call to come watch his kids when he had a medical emergency. I can't imagine being prohibited from owning defensive firearms because of a stupid thing such as hanging out with the wrong people at the wrong time.
-
.
-
A duck is a duck is a duck. Ducks usually stay pretty close to duck like their whole life.
An example Johnny Rogers. He might be a great Husker. He might be a swell guy, but giving someone all the rights back, that tossed caution to the wind, and knew he was being a bad guy, but in later life, wants to trade in a black hat for a white hat, I would say no.
Bronze stays bronze. You can count on that. However, if you have a clay personality, it does not just turn bronze, because it gets caught a few times.
Hey, lets turn loose Charlie Manson, and hope he is a new man. pass.
-
.
-
I tend to trust people with a track record of straight and narrow.
I would not hire someone with a history of embezzlement convictions to handle making cash reciepts into my bank account.
I dont think someone with a history of drinking and driving and DWI convictions should be given a bottle of whiskey and the keys to a car, expecting he will be better in the future.
Should someone with felony convictions be allowed to walk into a gun store and purchase firearms? There is something about that, sounds aberrant to me.
-
The point being that they should not be denied their rights based on our oppinions. Making it illegal for them to own a gun will not stop them if they want one anyway. Laws do not stop criminals, we all can agree on that!
-
I have been caught doing something that's not socially acceptable, that's right I like to put my cake in a bowl and pore milk over it. I no longer do this in public because of the looks I get. I could be banned from cake all together.
-
I would appreciate it if we don't spam up the thread. Thanks.
-
you'd have to have a pretty darn good reason for taking someones rights away for ever.
I am also in the line of thinking that if you have "paid your debt" then you have paid your debt.
My views on the world are pretty messed up, I am first and foremost a Christian, politically I am a mix between fiscal conservative and social libertarian. I don't think we should spend money on welfare, I do not find it to be constituional and I could write an essay on that if I wanted to get into my whole thing. We also should have no say on what people do/want to do in their own life.
You want to do gross things with another dude, thats nasty but I don't care.
You want to remove someone's rights you better have a damn good reason that goes beyong any question, there better be no grey area. We know we have the RIGHT to bear arms, there is no caveat saying "except full auto" or "except standard capacity mags" etc, so in my views and using contra proferentem as a back up, I think any and all laws that make it harder for me to get anything arms related is unconstitutional. Cost should be the only factor that determines what I own and use.
I'll conclude by saying though I am socially a libertarian I have to balance those views with what controls my life/soul/mind/heart, and in that I could never vote for or allow anything against my faith because I have to level my thoughts and life with my faith.
-
I tend to trust people with a track record of straight and narrow.
I dont think someone with a history of drinking and driving and DWI convictions should be given a bottle of whiskey and the keys to a car, expecting he will be better in the future.
Not trusting people with a spotty past is perfectly valid in many cases. You can't commit crimes and use drugs in your youth, wash out of college, then read a John LeCarre novel at age 28 and say, "Gosh it would be cool to be a spy. Maybe I'll do that with my life!" Good luck passing the polygraph and SCI clearances. Actions have consequences. Small actions have permanent consequences. Our society currently needs more people to understand that, but actions having consequences is currently falling out of fashion in this tiresome era.
The drunk driving analogy is good because of the frightening rate of recidivism. One DUI in a lifetime may not mean much, but when you look at the data it becomes clear that as soon as you get into multiple arrests, i.e. two or more, it soon becomes someone who will continue to violate over and over - all too often until they kill someone.
I realize there are a lot of ex cons out there on the straight an narrow, but the memory of Nikko Jenkins spree is a little too fresh to have any faith in the criminal justice system's ability to have "released" correlate in any way with "rehabilitated" or "nonsociopathic".
Maybe what I'm arguing for really is locking more people up longer and/or permanently, but that's ok. I'd like to see them bring back chain gangs so someone would finally fix all these pothole in Lincoln.
((((PS..... I thought I was the only one who did the milk on the cake thing, farmerbob.))))
-
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.
-
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.
^^That is might thoughts exactly^^
The advent of cable news, the slanting of the news to push a political view, sensationalism of the news for ratings,the inability to tell both sides of a story,dwelling on a tragedy for days,pretending to care and act like there must be an easy answer(more gun control) add low information voters and stir and bang that's where we are.
-
The drunk driving analogy is good because of the frightening rate of recidivism. One DUI in a lifetime may not mean much, but when you look at the data it becomes clear that as soon as you get into multiple arrests, i.e. two or more, it soon becomes someone who will continue to violate over and over - all too often until they kill someone.
I realize there are a lot of ex cons out there on the straight an narrow, but the memory of Nikko Jenkins spree is a little too fresh to have any faith in the criminal justice system's ability to have "released" correlate in any way with "rehabilitated" or "nonsociopathic".
Maybe what I'm arguing for really is locking more people up longer and/or permanently, but that's ok. I'd like to see them bring back chain gangs so someone would finally fix all these pothole in Lincoln.
The fallacy in that analogy is driving isn't protected by the Constitution and you get plenty of chances before they pull your licence for life.
The power in the document is that it is not subject to opinion. If it is, it is powerless. I have strong opinions about limiting those who vote liberal owning guns. What if a bunch of us got together and created a law keeping them from legally buying guns? There is plenty of statistical evedence that they are far more likely to use them in a crime.
The only way to change the Constitution is by passing amendments. The founders were smart enough to make that a difficult task. They knew making it easy would quickly lead to it being watered down to nothing. Think about how many courts have caved to violating your liberties in the name of public safety. If we can temporarily suspend our protection for such an ambiguous reason, we really have already given them up.
-
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.
Could not have said it better myself. +10
-
Could not have said it better myself. +10
So you think the mentally handicapped should have access to guns? Or children? Or those with documented severe psychological issues?
-
Don't forget the 'what' along with the 'who' is being infringed. I believe the constitutional framers intended that we should be able to buy a FN M240 over the counter without ANY government interference what so ever. If you can't be trusted to own a gun then you can't be trusted to vote, drive, own property etc.
The NFA, GCA etc are ridiculous and OBVIOUS infringements.
-
Bar, I have no idea how old you, but when I was in the 10-12 year age range I had my own .22 rifle and single shot shotgun.
http://nebraskanews.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-can-one-say-about-something-like.html (http://nebraskanews.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-can-one-say-about-something-like.html)
In the summer, after the chores were done, a group of other kids and I would head out with our rifles and fishing poles. No one thought a damn thing about it, because our parents were instilling responsibility from an early age. They used to teach hunter education and gun safety in the classroom as well. Now a days, in some places it is consider child neglect to introduce a child to firearms safety. (Aside _ But it okay to give our eleven year old daughters access to condoms and birth control without parental knowledge)
Parents are charged with neglect for instilling responsibility in their kids, but the welfare moms of gang-bangers get a pass on the same charge when their kids shoot somebody??
It is all about responsibility. The mindset now is that the entire population has to suffer the consequences of the actions of a very, very few.
Why should my kids and grandkids suffer because other parents are derelict about instilling responsibility in theirs?
Mentally handicapped have guns? That should be the responsibility of their care givers whether they should have guns, sharp steak knives, baseball bats etc..
Severe psychological issues? If they are that severe they are or should be confined without access to anything not approved by their caregivers anyway.
Now I know, because of the ACLU, a lot of them are not. They used to be!
Some years ago the ACLU challenged the confinement of those with severe psychological issues. The result was; If a properly medicated individual can function in society then they must be released.
Many of these people have been disowned by their families and released into society with no support system at all. One of the first things they do is STOP taking their meds because the side-effects are worse than the cure. Since there is no support system to ensure the meds are taken these psychos regress to their former selves.
(Aside - Because of the above Peace Officers are having to deal with these folks on the street in situations that often result in the use of deadly force. There is increasing pressure for police departments to find a solution to the problem that has been forced on the by the Mental health community, ACLU and the family that will come out of the woodwork after "Joe Crazy" was needlessly shot down after attacking a peace officer with a weapon. Then the family sues the crap out of the PD for wrongful death of a loving family member they haven't had anything to do with for years.)
So my question is because there is a small segment of our population that has been unleashed on the rest of us by a touchy feely sing Kumbya group why we must suffer the unreasonable restrictions on our RKBA?
It all boils down to responsibility and accountability. Leave people alone and only when necessary hold them accountable for their actions rather than punishing the entire population in advance.
-
Hardwood, SCOTUS alluded to that fact in their examination of Miller; We cannot determine that a short-barreled shotgun is a tool of the militia because you have no tasked us to.
Their implication was if it is a tool of the militia then it would be legal for Miller to possess and not subject by the GCA of 1934 that required a Tax stamp for weapons used by gansters.
-
Great reply, Gunscribe. In the mid eighties, I had unfettered access to a .22 and shotguns starting about ten years old when I bought my first gun with money I earned working and birthday cash.
Bad things can/ do happen when guns fall into the wrong hands but that is just one of the risks we have to live with. We seem to accept that with other tools but guns are targeted because too many people fail to realize all of the good things they are used for, mainly liberty preservers.
-
It all boils down to responsibility and accountability. Leave people alone and only when necessary hold them accountable for their actions rather than punishing the entire population in advance.
I personally think this is the answer to all our 2nd. amendment issues.
-
This is why I love this forum, you all are making me really think through this stuff. I appreciate all your views!
-
This is why I love this forum, you all are making me really think through this stuff. I appreciate all your views!
That was my intention in starting this so I am glad to hear that. Our side is seriously fractured and most only care about what is acceptable in their opinion. If we want to keep our rights, we have to accept even the parts that scare us.
-
Should I be able to have a brand new full auto M16 with a ten inch barrel and titanium silencer without paying a $600 tax? You bet!
-
Should I be able to have a brand new full auto M16 with a ten inch barrel and titanium silencer without paying a $600 tax? You bet!
Yes!
SCOTUS alluded to that fact in their examination of Miller; We cannot determine that a short-barreled shotgun is a tool of the militia because you have not asked us to.
Their implication was if it is a tool of the militia then it would be legal for Miller to possess and not subject by the GCA of 1934 that required a Tax stamp for weapons used by gangsters.
-
Reagan is my hero but he really effed up when 86ed new full autos. I wish we would pull together and reject all this crap that we accept because most just think it is legal just because it is the law.
-
My favorite (non relative) is Thomas Jefferson so I asked him what he thought. He told me the answer by reading one of his books. Here it is.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson
-
IMHO actions have consequences. Some good, some bad, depending upon the action taken. If John Q. Public decides one day to take his 38 S&W and rob a bank, he knows that if caught that there will be consequences. One of those consequences is, known by John or not, that he will never ever be allowed to legally own a gun again. Has nothing to do with if he is rehabilitated or not, it’s a small part of the price he pays for his decision on that cold November day at the bank. He made a decision, decisions have consequences. Even in 1776 this simple concept was true. They had prisons and jails, courts and penalties, laws and law enforcement. Even the famed Thomas Jefferson knew these things, and I strongly suspect that he supported the idea of consequences for actions. I can do and support no less.
-
Actions do have consequences yes!
From the Founding days persons that paid their debt to society had all of their Rights restored upon completion of their sentence. In the 1800's there were ex-cons that went on to be well respected lawmen.
All convicted felons loose their RKBA. You alluded to an armed bank robber. How about a car dealer convicted of turning back the speedometer on a used car? How about a woman convicted of embezzling a couple thousand dollars? How about any of the non-violent crimes classified as felonies.
This felony thing is a product of gun control. Make as many crimes as possible felonies and you will only need one gun law and 3/4's of the population will be convicted felons.
Most people can't make it through any given day that without doing something that could be construed as a felony.
So the 2 years a guy gets for turning back a speedometer is actually the same life sentence as murder. Most murders spend less than 25 years behind bars.
He paid his debt when will he ever be a free man again?
-
At one time I believe it was Arkansas had a law on the books that stated when a prisoner was released from the penitentiary he was to be given a twenty dollar gold piece and his firearm back.
I am not sure when the felons can't own guns thing started, possibly with the GCA of 1968, but it is a recent invention in American history.
-
I wish that I had crossed paths with Gunscribe earlier in life. He really has things nailed down.
-
None. Period. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
"Shall not be infringed." Means shall not be infringed. Any and all restrictions are infringement. It is pretty plain, simple and straight forward English.
-
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.
We had prisons in the colonial times, and I doubt the 2nd A was penned for those folks.
I have no problem with a lawless segmant of society getting locked up, and staying locked up.
But what do we do in Nebraska? We not only make them more crazy in jail as is the case of Ninko, we then turn him loose when he asks to be helped. How many people did he kill? We know of 4. There are more murders in that time period he may be guilty of, but his stragegty is to use that to bargan with later?
Not only do we not know how to handle our own undesirable factions in our population, we now bus children from central america and mexico to live in Nebraska. Those kids and adults need to be put on planes headed south ASAP NOW.
I think if you sit down to play gin, it would be pretty foolish to start playing 21 in the middle of a hand.
In the 1830s if someone served his time, and was given full rights back, that was the rules then.
In 2014, if someone if a felon out of jail, I dont want this guy buying guns in walmart. It is the law of the land today, and if his parents and teachers were on the ball, every child knows the difference between right and wrong. They knew better, and they knew the consequences, or should have known.
-
What does a law making it illegal for felons to buy guns at Wal Mart do? Does it keep them from getting a gun if they want one? I would say almost never. What it really does is provide a crack in the foundation of our protection. That crack gets worked and worked until we are left with nothing.
The 2A is 27 words of liberty. It is still the law of the land but too many folks have been fooled into not believing it. If we don't stand together and support the full gravity of it because we find some parts scary, we are handing the antis the hammers and chisels.
-
Gary, you don't know how much I agree with you in principal. Lock them up and keep them locked up.
This is a very emotional issue and it is easy to make a law that says ______ can not possess firearms.
But what does that truly accomplish? Those felons that do their time and lawfully get on with their lives without a firearm are not the problem.
The problem is those felons that return to a life of crime possessing and using firearms. The law means nothing to them. Breaking the law is in their job description.
The only people that obey gun laws are those law abiding citizens that are disinclined from criminal activity and that includes felons that have put their past behind them.
Gun laws only effect and make life more dangerous for the law abiding.
In states that have registration a felon can not be charged with failing to register a firearm because it they tried to they would be incriminating themselves. What good does registration do if only lawful citizen can be charged with failure to?
True, there are members of society that have no business being around firearms and we all know some that have never been in trouble a day in their life.
I appreciate your example of Nikko, but I think it may not be the right one for this situation.
As I understand the case he was sentenced to 21 yrs. of that he did 10 yrs. in incarceration. That means he still has an 11 yr. parole obligation to the state, so even if he had kept his nose clean it would still be nearly a dozen years before he could be considered a free man having fully paid his debt to society.
The fact that he had a gun means the law forbidding felons from possessing a firearm did not accomplish one damn thing anyway. Why have useless laws on the books?
I understand it provides an opportunity to prosecute a felon when caught, but how many more companion charges have they already broken that should be enough to put that person away for a very long time? Rape? Bank robbery? Car Jacking?
True most of these people do not get the sentences that they deserve, but that is a function of the courts. Passing more laws to take up the slack in the courts is the lazy feel good way out.
Why should society be subjected to laws that are enacted because panty-waist judges refuse to do their jobs.
-
"In states that have registration a felon can not be charged with failing to register a firearm because it they tried to they would be incriminating themselves. What good does registration do if only lawful citizen can be charged with failure to?
True, there are members of society that have no business being around firearms and we all know some that have never been in trouble a day in their life."
This I didn't know, its almost as if it was written with this in mind, to only affect law abiding citizens and to allow the dependant class to continue to do what they want.
-
This I didn't know, its almost as if it was written with this in mind, to only affect law abiding citizens and to allow the dependant class to continue to do what they want.
The law provides that you can not be compelled to give evidence against yourself. A felon in possession of a firearm can be charged with such if he is caught with it, but he can not be convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm. If he tried to register it he would be giving evidence against himself.
I do know of some instances where a felon was initially charged with possession of an unregistered firearm, but I know of no felon that has ever been convicted on that charge.
As with most gun control laws the only ones they apply to and the only ones that will grudgingly obey them are the law-abiding citizens.
Yes, there are some hold hands kumbya singers that believe the world would be a garden of Eden if all weapons were banned. These are the useful idiots of the power elite that want all guns controlled so that they can exercise unfettered power over the population they seek to dominate.
As firearms owners any concession we make enables the power elite to take even more.
-
http://sheriffjimwilson.com/2012/02/07/the-outlaw-turned-sheriff/ (http://sheriffjimwilson.com/2012/02/07/the-outlaw-turned-sheriff/)
-
Uhh.. I think the question was "What is Constitutional?" not, "How do you think the world should be?"
It's black and white. Shall NOT be infringed.
I don't care if you don't like it. That's what is says, that's what it means.
You got a problem with that? Change it.
-
It's black and white. Shall NOT be infringed.
Unfortunately the world is not black and white. It just isn't, and believing otherwise is not rational.
Neither is the subject of ownership by a prohibited person, there are states and places where this is a grey area and the 2nd Amendment (much as I love and adore both it and the folks who wrote it) is more than a little ambiguous when viewed from certain perspectives. Not that your understand is lacking, but it’s obvious that other people have different opinions from their own perspectives. If this were not true then there would be no need for this forum, the NRA, the SAF, or any of the other pro 2A organizations in our country.
Another way of looking at this is if the individual is the one making the decision to knowingly break the law then they are also the one making the decision to permanently curtail some of their own rights. The Bill of Rights is about restricting what government can do, not about what citizens can do to themselves.
By breaking the law in a fashion that allows for a felony charge could it not be argued that the individual is tacitly giving the government permission to curtail one’s personal freedoms? I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that breaking the law opens the door for the government to enter/control certain areas of our lives or impose consequences for the decisions we make that the citizenry says are unacceptable. One of those consequences currently is a permanent ban on the ownership of a firearm by a felon.
-
impose consequences for the decisions we make that the citizenry says are unacceptable.
But, it seems to me that government is making the laws that "citizenry" has little to say about. I have voted for legislation that won by popular citizen vote...only to be ignored by government as they plow ahead for their quest of power and control often making law that directly conflicts with what "the people" want.
Stripping a person of rights and freedom does not make them law abiding. Telling a felon they can not posses firearms does nothing to prevent a felon from aquiring and using guns. It may increase consequenses if caught but what has the law created?
-
Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act, passed in 1986, reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns, and also banned people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing guns.
Felons owning guns is a recent invention that was spawned from the deaths of two Kennedys and a Malcolm. Signed by Johnson in 1968.
Turning back a speedometer = felony
Killing somebody = felony
So in essence a used car salesman gets the same life sentence that a murderer does. Now that's real American Justice for you.
Banning certain people from having guns is just gun owner approved go along to get along gun control.
Now there are even misdemeanors on the list and gun owners keep sucking up to the grabbers. Just because you are not in any ban category doesn't mean you won't be in the future.
Pretty soon failing to renew your registration in a timely manner will get you banned from owning a gun. Or letting your insurance lapse accidently. Holy crap if you are not responsible enough to manage your finances you certainly are not responsible to own a firearm.
Doubt me? It appears that is what may be happening to some Veterans through recommendations made by the V.A.
The grabbers are smart enough to know that they can not get all guns banned in one swooping law so for the last 50 years they have been doing it one little piece at a time and there is just too many gun owners that are happy to help them get the job done.
-
There are certain people that shouldn't be around guns yet all the laws on the books won't keep them out of their hands. Laws are for the law bidding not the lawless.
Gun control is about control. I don't need the very people that my tax money pays there salary taking liberties with my rights, the very rights they took an oath to uphold.
Gun control is based in lies and misinformation to make some feel good who are ruled by emotions rather than by facts as they freely give up there rights and want ours also. This is what we must fight.
-
Gun control is based in lies and misinformation to make some feel good who are ruled by emotions rather than by facts as they freely give up there rights and want ours also. This is what we must fight.
+1
-
But, it seems to me that government is making the laws that "citizenry" has little to say about. I have voted for legislation that won by popular citizen vote...only to be ignored by government as they plow ahead for their quest of power and control often making law that directly conflicts with what "the people" want.
Stripping a person of rights and freedom does not make them law abiding. Telling a felon they can not posses firearms does nothing to prevent a felon from aquiring and using guns. It may increase consequenses if caught but what has the law created?
There is nothing in your comment that I can disagree with, not one thing.
Yet it is the citizens responsibility to elect their representatives carefully, with knowledge and great consideration. If government is making decisions we do not like then we elected the wrong representatives. Us. You me and the guy/gal next door. From my perspective, here in Nebraska, we do a pretty good job electing the right people. Not always, but in general they do what we elected them for and represent us in a manner that is not completely unacceptable. In this day and age that is about the best we can ask for. Electing someone based on a hand shake, a few commercials, and MAYBE a debate, is like trying to divine water in a desert. Tough going. I also wish that government did a better job, but wishing is not going to make it happen.