[cuchulainn]

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jan/01222003/utah/22333.asp

from the Salt Lake Tribune

Gun Restriction Plan Advances
A bill paving the way for police to slap convicted violent criminals with a second-degree felony if they so much as offer to purchase or sell firearms moved swiftly through committee Tuesday.

It already is illegal in Utah for violent criminals, including parolees, to purchase, transfer, own or use a gun.

But Rep. Ty McCartney, D-Salt Lake City, wants to expand those restrictions.

"There are many occasions where gang leaders try to buy weapons for gang members. In order to make an arrest and prosecute, we have to place fully operational firearms in their hands" -- not a good idea, said McCartney, a detective in Salt Lake's metro gang unit.

Under McCartney's measure, police would need only supply proof that a felon had agreed, consented or arranged to transfer a gun.

Surprisingly, as House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Ben Ferry noted, the bill encountered no opposition from gun rights activists in the audience.

David Nelson of the newly organized gay gun rights group the Pink Pistols said after the committee hearing he considers the bill harmless.

-- Kirsten Stewart
© Copyright 2003, The Salt Lake Tribune.

[TheOtherOne]

David Nelson of the newly organized gay gun rights group the Pink Pistols said after the committee hearing he considers the bill harmless.
:uhoh:

There is no such thing as harmless gun control. No matter what the guise may be.

This is a ridiculous proposal in my opinion. The next thing you know police will be giving traffic tickets because you looked like the type who was going to run that stop light.

[TheOtherOne]

By the way, I just got done e-mailing Ty McCartney (tymccartney@utah.gov), my local rep and the Governor about this. So at least they know there is one person out here that's against gun control.

[Ted Bell]

How is this gun control other than making it a crime for convicted violent offenders to offer to purchase or sell firearms? Under McCartney's measure, police would need only supply proof that a felon had agreed, consented or arranged to transfer a gun. In other words a convicted violent offender could not act as a middle man in arranging for the transfer of a firearm.

It's already a crime for these people to possess a firearm.

[TheOtherOne]

I agree it doesn't seem to be that bad of thing. But it's rather pointless and could easily be a stepping stone to bigger and "better" laws.

I'm of the opinion that we've already got the only gun law that we'll ever need, the Second Amendment. All of the other laws out their are rubbish and just get in the way of me enjoying my RIGHTS.

[Wildalaska]

Interesting...the conduct that is to be prohibited is already a crime under an "aiding and abetting" statute or "accesorial liability", but usually that is puniched as a lesser offense. Apparently they are just upgrading the punishment.

Sounds like a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm of the opinion that we've already got the only gun law that we'll ever need, the Second Amendment. All of the other laws out their are rubbish and just get in the way of me enjoying my RIGHTS.

O really? Well OK then stand up for your rights. Parade with that machine gun down the street and then fight it in Court. Show the courage of your convictions, like Al Sharpton or the Canadian protesters.

[TheOtherOne]

Dang, nobody is on my side. Oh well, I still feel the same way. It's just another law that there are already laws for and if we allow good gun laws like these ones, then we open the door wider for future not-so-good gun laws.


O really? Well OK then stand up for your rights. Parade with that machine gun down the street and then fight it in Court. Show the courage of your convictions, like Al Sharpton or the Canadian protesters.I would love to do it, but fear high priced lawyers, jail and the criminal record I would probably get. I guess I think I'm better off just jumping through the hoops right now or maybe I just don't truly believe in this cause enough.... but, since you are always pushing people to do it, why don't you go for it?

[Wildalaska]

but, since you are always pushing people to do it, why don't you go for it?

Because I am not continualy harping on the alleged meaning of the 2nd amendment that is without basis in law...

[jimpeel]

All laws are always taken to their wildest extremes regardless of the intent when enacted.

Remember how the R.I.C.O. laws were going to be used against the Mafia Dons and were eventually used against abortion protesters?

Remember how the Seizure and Forfeiture laws were going to be used to take the property of drug "kingpins" and were eventually used to take the homes of little old ladies?

There are no harmless laws.

[Standing Wolf]

At what point does it become a crime for a convicted felon to think about acquiring a firearm?

[para.2]

About the same time it becomes a crime for a law-abiding gun-owner to "allow" his firearms to be stolen and used in a crime by said felon.:scrutiny:

[jrhines]

IMHO, all those violent convicted felons who are on the streets should be back in prison. Or they should be able to own guns like everyone else. If, because of suspected crimminal intent, a person is not fit to own firearms out in society, then that person should be incarcerated. It seems to me to be mindless babble that convicted felon X has served his/her time and is now ready to take a place at the table, oh!, except, no knife or fork. Laws do not prevent crime, they only set the boundries for behaviors that are generally accepted. This, to me, is just another "feel good" law that will have no effect.
Just for clarification, WA, what is the "alleged meaning of the 2nd amendment" that we seem to be harping about?

J.Rhines
Seneca, MD

[Wildalaska]

Just for clarification, WA, what is the "alleged meaning of the 2nd amendment" that we seem to be harping about?

How about starting off with the absolutely absurd and unsupportable theory that felons should be able to own firearms...

WildherewegoagainAlaska

[labgrade]

Lurking this thread till now.

WA, howz about a "felon" that was busted for having an LEO-only mag built 10 seconds after the pre-ban mag was legally built?

The "perp" has an 11 round capacity mag, built just seconds after the ban. It's a felony.

You buy into that?

Where would you draw the line regards what a felon is, or isn't?

Is it based on enacted law, or on what should be, based on some semblance or reality?

[Al Norris]

So a person who has lived a relatively good life for the first 20 years or so, makes 1 (count 'em) mistake and gets busted fro whatever felony. This person spends (say) 5 years in prison, gets out and does another 5 years on parole. During that 5 years, he gets a job, makes no more mistakes, assumes his role as an honest upstanding citizen....

And you want to punish this person for the rest of their life? That's justice? Since when is it justice to sentance a person with a life long disability?

WA, if the person is unfit for full rights as a citizen, then they should be kept behind bars. Else restore the persons rights when the punishment is done....or do you believe that a persons debt to society is never done?

[jrhines]

Maybe I was not clear in my question, so let me rephrase it. What is the "alleged meaning of the 2nd amendment" that we seem to be harping about? I don't understand your reply. Would you demonstrate how "absolutely absurd and unsupportable" my "theory" is? I am not a constitutional scholar, but English is my mother tongue. The meaning of the 2ed amendment seems clear, but perhaps I am missing something deeper or more elusive.

J.Rhines
Seneca, MD

[Wildalaska]

Sigh...here we go again...

Where would you draw the line regards what a felon is, or isn't?

A felon is a person who is convicted of a felony. Even in your somewhat absurd example, the fella is a felon. And no, I am not gonna argue why your example is absurd as you plainly know it is.

So a person who has lived a relatively good life for the first 20 years or so, makes 1 (count 'em) mistake and gets busted fro whatever felony.

Sorry I dont call a felony a "mistake"..look at the felonies in your state and tell me how they can be a "mistake"

Since when is it justice to sentance a person with a life long disability?

The person can apply for a pardon, in some states relief from disabilities, or we can all get off our butts and beseech congress to restore funding for the ATF to do the disability releifs again...until then..yep one can get a life long disability until the Courts or Congress says otherwise...

What is the "alleged meaning of the 2nd amendment" that we seem to be harping about?

If I need to explain that to you you have not been reading some ogf the out of left field positions on this Board...

[jimpeel]

Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does the Congress have any authority to remove a right from any person for the remainder of their life? Answer: Just one place; and that is for treason.

Is there anyone here that believes that a person who commits a crime is a peer to a person that commits treason against our country?

Prior to the GCA68 there was no restriction for anyone who was previously convicted of a crime from aquiring a firearm. The Congress passed this lifetime restriction by fiat legislation which bypassed the safeguards built into the Constitution by the framers. They were too cowardly to attempt to actually amend the Constitution to add this lifetime restriction to the Supreme Law of the Land.

The public bought into this because they believed it would make them safer. It hasn't.

How many who post here, and previuosly on TFL, have posted the Ben Franklin quote "Those who give up essential liberty ..." etc., etc., ad nauseum? This is a prime example of exactly what he meant yet the same people who believe in the quote are the same ones who buy into this fiat legislation.

Should an ex-felon be allowed to possess a firearm?

Not only yes, but HELL YES.

This is how it was for the first 192 years of the Republic.

There are those who feel, however, that those who have seen a conviction are guilty for life; and there is no rehabilitation; there is no repentance; there is no recompence.

We then leave these people to fend for themselves while we moan and complain about the court decisions that have affirmed that the police have no duty to protect any person nor prevent any crime. So where do these people, who have been attained (and this law is a Bill of Attainder which is prohibited by the Constitution) of lifetime guilt, go for protection? They can't protect themselves nor are they able to be protected by those who have been absolved from that duty.

A prime example of the drunken logic of this was posted by me at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78425 a couple of years ago. The stories are still available at http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.doublemurder.0816w and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/08/17/MN229399.DTL

According to the parole division of the State of California, this guy had a greater duty to allow himself and four other people to be slain than for him to pick up the perpetrator's firearm and defend them. He was arrested on a parole violation for defending himself and the others from what was sure to become a quintupal murder. That'swhat perps do when they are known to the victims.

So for those of you who would ask the question "Who here would defend the right of a felon to possess a firearm?" The answer is -- "Me."

[TheOtherOne]

:scrutiny: Wildalska, I'm not seeing any of your points at all and I'm probably wasting my time arguing... but it's fun anyways.

Sorry I dont call a felony a "mistake"..look at the felonies in your state and tell me how they can be a "mistake"18 year old high school kid is driving after school and, because he's going way too fast (like 20 mph over), he doesn't stop in time for another kid that was crossing the street. He's convicted of vehicular homicide and it's a felony because he was driving wrecklessly.

I know you don't see something like that as a mistake, but I do. Yes, the driver needs to be punished for being a moron and killing someone as a result. But is it fair to take away his right to defend himself for the rest of his life because of one tragically stupid thing he didn't really mean to do?

[Wildalaska]

18 year old high school kid is driving after school and, because he's going way too fast (like 20 mph over), he doesn't stop in time for another kid that was crossing the street. He's convicted of vehicular homicide and it's a felony because he was driving wrecklessly.

Recklessnesss..legally defined as knowing a risk..and CONSCIOUSLY disregarding same...

And a death results?

Sorry, millions of high school kids every day do not commit vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide...a car is a dangerous instrument and I dont buy this sob sister stuff about mistakes....its like shooting a gun into a crowd....

Arguing that felons desrve to won firearms does a great disservice to the pro gun cause..remember who we have toi convince..the muddled middle...they like most reasonable people dont want felons to own firearms...

Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does the Congress have any authority to remove a right from any person for the remainder of their life? Answer: Just one place; and that is for treason.

And of course I guess we are contending that the Supreme Court or lower Courts have not ruled on this? And if they have, they are wrong I suppose.

WildmostofthestatelawsonthismustbewrongtooAlaska

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

Okay, Wildalaska, help me out here. As I understand it, your position is that released felons should not be permitted the RKBA because the law says that they should not. I also gather that you do not disagree with a released felon having that right restored to him should he be able to do so under the law. But you also state that the idea that released felons should be able to KBA is absurd and unsupportable. Can you reconcile this for me?

[Wildalaska]

OK sorry, just to reconcile, a felon who is pardoned is no longer a felon..

If one has his/her rights restored by operation of law, that is allright too...


WildsometimesobscureAlaska

[TheOtherOne]

Recklessnesss..legally defined as knowing a risk..and CONSCIOUSLY disregarding same...

Perhaps speeding alone should be a felony. From time to time I consciously break the posted speed limit and because of my recklessness a death could result.

[labgrade]

WA,

Posting problems yerterday so this didn't fly.

There are many, many felonies. Some I'd daresay we don't even know what they are, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.

So howz about somebody who has possession of an LEO only mag? Same thing as the one made 10 seconds before the cut-off date = it's a felony to possess.

This mag holds eleven - the extra round makes you a felon.

You buy that?

[Wildalaska]

Yes

WildthatslifeAlaska

[jimpeel]

And of course I guess we are contending that the Supreme Court or lower Courts have not ruled on this? And if they have, they are wrong I suppose.First of all, you have merely answered my question with another question which does not answer my question at all. I reiterate my question for your edification in the hope that you will, this time, be able to elucidate an answer.

Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does the Congress have any authority to remove a right from any person for the remainder of their life?

To assist you in this quest, I am including links to the Historical Document webpage of the United States Congress:

Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.html)

Preamble to the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/preamble.html)

Bill of Rights (Amend 1-10) (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html)

Amendments 11-27 (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/amendments_11-27.html)

In an effort to afford you a courtesy you have failed to extend to me, I will answer your question:

The courts ruled that slavery was Constitutional until they ruled it wasn't.

The Jim Crow laws were Constitutional until they ruled they weren't.

Literacy tests for voting were Constitutional until they ruled they weren't.

Women being disallowed voting rights was Constitutional until they ruled it wasn't.

The "separate but equal" laws were Constitutional until that pesky Brown vs. Board of Education case.

Histroy is rife with examples of the USSC having found that previous rulings, considered precedent, were in fact unconstitutional.

Then again, they have found things in there that the rest of us have yet to find.

The right to privacy that is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

The "separation of church and state" that appears nowhere in the Constitution.

The fact is that this law, barring an ex-felon from having a firearm, is a Bill of Attainder (http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm), which is prohibited by the Supreme Law of the Land. This law creates a crime from another crime, or attains the person guilty for life, and the punishment is the loss of a Constitutional right for the rest of their life. The crime thay have committed is the crime of having committed a crime.

What are your thoughts on the Lautenberg Act which, for the first time in the history of the United States, took a Constitutional right for the commission of a misdemeanor? Does it bother you that the Lautenberg Act is an ex post facto (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e086.htm) law?

Do you feel that the Lautenberg Act will be expanded beyond its original intent to include other lesser crimes such as failure to appear for traffic citations?

There is empirical evidence that this will happen. Two examples of this are the R.I.C.O. Act and the Seizure and Forfeiture laws which have been broadened so far and wide that they pose a threat to American freedom.

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

In the spirit of concilliation, let me make an observation or two. Wildalaska, I do not presume to speak for you, only on your behalf; and to all, remember that these are MY observations, not necessarily Wildalaska's opinions.

First of all, it seems to me that Wildalaska's primary position is reverence for the rule of law. It is worth noting, I think, that without the rule of law, we have anarchy. Wildalaska is secure in the position that disagreement with a law does not mean that you can flout it with impunity. If you break a law, you may be assured that the justice system will attempt its own remedy, and short of a nullification by the jury, that remedy will be applied to some degree.

I also observe that Wildalaska does not state that he agrees with the particular laws under discussion, only that they are in fact the law. So, complaining that someone is punished under a particular law (especially when they knew what the law required) is missing the point to a certain degree. Yes, our sense of justice is outraged, but the real outrage is that an unjust law is allowed to stand.

By all means, a person should conduct himself or herself according to the dicatates of his/her own conscience. If conscience dictates that a person should disregard a particular law in spite of the consequences, then if one truly holds those consequences in despite, one should not then complain about those same consequences.

[labgrade]

"It is worth noting, I think, that without the rule of law, we have anarchy."

& so?

I'd think that most of our ideas, or definitions about "anarchy" doesn't result in an insane & totally lawless scoiety.

Frankly, each of us is always in a state of complete anarchy in that we will always do as we choose to do.

Most, many, all of of us already do as we wish to do & really, no laws account for our own behavior or responsibility.

Anarchy has gotten a bad rap.

I am in in a constant state of anarchy & so are you.

You choose either to "obey" or not, but will always act according to your own moral code.

Rules are for idiots who never knew how to act without someone telling them how to do so .....

"Resume safe speed."

My fave roadsign.

Yeah, right.

& WA, just because it is law, doesn't make it right in the least.

You are incorrect in your assumptions, sir.

[jimpeel]

Hmmmm. Still waiting ...

[TheOtherOne]

Sorry about pulling up the old post, but just an update on the original bill.... it was killed! :)

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,455027932,00.html

[jimpeel]

Thanks for the new info. This thread was dead from lack of response anyway.