danmc
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2020
- Messages
- 68
I’ve always been of the opinion that one can not renounce a right. One may refrain from exercising it, but it is always your right to assert. Wonder if courts would agree with me.
AL bill to renounce your 2nd amendment right
- Thread starter DeepSouth
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
DeepSouth
Random Guy
With this bill you would even be giving up the right to possess.
“This bill would create the Voluntary Alabama
Firearms Do-Not-Sell List and would allow an
individual to restrict his or her ability to
purchase or possess a firearm by voluntarily adding his or her own name to the Voluntary Alabama Firearms Do-Not-Sell List when there is a fear that he or she may become a risk to himself or herself or others.”
Erik M
Member
How exactly do you apply? Would it be online, where someone could add other people without their knowledge, or will you have to appear in a government building and show more ID than required to vote? It sounds like a crap show from the start, and I'm willing to bet the 'voluntary' part gets dropped when red flag laws are tied into this sham registry.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
"Existing law does not provide a method for an individual to restrict his or her own legal ability to receive, transport, or possess firearms due to a fear that he or she may become a risk to himself or herself or others."
Talk about a perfectly USELESS bill.
Usually it's someone writing laws to prevent someone ELSE from doing something.
At least there's this:
"This bill would also provide methods by which an individual on the Voluntary Alabama Firearms Do-Not-Sell List may remove his or her own name from the list."
Which does two things:
It renders an already useless law even MORE useless, for one. For another, at least it does something the federal government does not: provide an avenue for people to pursue getting their names off certain lists, like no-fly lists and such. So I'll at least give them that.
What I don't know is the legitimacy/authority of this bill to actually be able to both add a person to the federal government's list of prohibited people OR, more importantly, affect a removal of a person from said federal list.
Also, while the requirements to get oneself added to this list are utterly simplistic (and cost free), the requirement to get oneself OFF that list are anything BUT simple and cost free.
The first thing it says is the department will wait 21 days after receipt of a request for removal before notifying the FBI to update NICS. THEN the agency will purge all records of the sign-up, transactions, and removal.
But the process starts with the individual applying to the district court in his county AND provide by a preponderance of evidence that he's not likely to be a danger to himself or others. AND any public official or interested party may also present evidence.
So it's going to cost at the very least court costs...and likely attorney costs, too. And that "evidence" others may present can be for or against the individual.
The court then has 24 hours to render a decision, after which the department has 24 hours to remove the individual from the list.
AND GUESS WHAT? There's a requirement built into the bill which requires the department to continuously send their registry information not only to the FBI for NICS, but to all other states which have a similar list. Gosh, I can't see where there might be any administrative problems or abuses with this!
AT LEAST there is a provision for any person who makes a false statement or representation with respect to the adding someone into the system. (Class A misdemeanor, fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than one year.) And it does block insurance companies/agencies from accessing the list or modifying any terms of an insurance policy of individual who may be on the list. Similar for employers, educational institutions, health care providers, etc.
Interestingly, any person who learns the identity of anyone on this list is not allowed to disclose that information without specific written authorization beforehand from the individual.
It's a stupid bill. Might as well start writing voluntary food restriction list bills for obese people.
Talk about a perfectly USELESS bill.
Usually it's someone writing laws to prevent someone ELSE from doing something.
At least there's this:
"This bill would also provide methods by which an individual on the Voluntary Alabama Firearms Do-Not-Sell List may remove his or her own name from the list."
Which does two things:
It renders an already useless law even MORE useless, for one. For another, at least it does something the federal government does not: provide an avenue for people to pursue getting their names off certain lists, like no-fly lists and such. So I'll at least give them that.
What I don't know is the legitimacy/authority of this bill to actually be able to both add a person to the federal government's list of prohibited people OR, more importantly, affect a removal of a person from said federal list.
Also, while the requirements to get oneself added to this list are utterly simplistic (and cost free), the requirement to get oneself OFF that list are anything BUT simple and cost free.
The first thing it says is the department will wait 21 days after receipt of a request for removal before notifying the FBI to update NICS. THEN the agency will purge all records of the sign-up, transactions, and removal.
But the process starts with the individual applying to the district court in his county AND provide by a preponderance of evidence that he's not likely to be a danger to himself or others. AND any public official or interested party may also present evidence.
So it's going to cost at the very least court costs...and likely attorney costs, too. And that "evidence" others may present can be for or against the individual.
The court then has 24 hours to render a decision, after which the department has 24 hours to remove the individual from the list.
AND GUESS WHAT? There's a requirement built into the bill which requires the department to continuously send their registry information not only to the FBI for NICS, but to all other states which have a similar list. Gosh, I can't see where there might be any administrative problems or abuses with this!
AT LEAST there is a provision for any person who makes a false statement or representation with respect to the adding someone into the system. (Class A misdemeanor, fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than one year.) And it does block insurance companies/agencies from accessing the list or modifying any terms of an insurance policy of individual who may be on the list. Similar for employers, educational institutions, health care providers, etc.
Interestingly, any person who learns the identity of anyone on this list is not allowed to disclose that information without specific written authorization beforehand from the individual.
It's a stupid bill. Might as well start writing voluntary food restriction list bills for obese people.
gnappi
Member
Yes you can... smack your Wife (a misdemeanor), commit a white collar (or violent) felony, renounce your citizenship (though resident aliens ARE allowed to have a firearm and have access to the 2A)
So, since you can be denied constitutional rights by "them" I would assume you could voluntarily renounce them a la carte
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Yes you can... smack your Wife (a misdemeanor), commit a white collar (or violent) felony, renounce your citizenship (though resident aliens ARE allowed to have a firearm and have access to the 2A)
So, since you can be denied constitutional rights by "them" I would assume you could voluntarily renounce them a la carte
You can also be Red Flagged, don't forget that.
NEVER voluntarily give up your rights. PERIOD.
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
I don't like the idea of a government giving itself the power to enforce voluntary renouncement of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Smells like something the Soviets would use as a tool. It's kind of sickening.
You can in fact renounce your citizenship. That alone will get rid of your American "rights" that are not recognized by other countries.
AlexanderA
Member
In the U.S., rights are independent of citizenship. For example, resident aliens can buy and possess guns. It's just that they can't vote.
It's relatively easy for Americans to renounce citizenship. (They might have to pay an "expatriation tax" if they're expatriating for tax avoidance purposes.) Other countries flatly prohibit expatriation of their citizens. (In Greece, you can only expatriate with a private bill passed through the Greek parliament. Hence the large number of people with dual Greek and American citizenship. Same for Italians.)
JTHunter
Member
Good point !! Can't you just see some disgruntled ex-spouse getting YOU put on this list out of spite?
Anchorite
Member
Sad fact - I’ve lived in Alabama for over thirty years now … how these idiots get elected only reinforces my impression and opinion that the vast majority of voters are uninformed which translates to more idiots getting elected to office. It’s a viscous cycle.
Read here for a most interesting nuance on the proposed Alabama law....
Read also: https://www.donnaslaw.com/
Pays to look beyond the obvious...
...sometimes
.
Read also: https://www.donnaslaw.com/
Pays to look beyond the obvious...
...sometimes
.
Lassen Forge
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 11
In some states if you have been commited for a "mental health disorder", your rights to possess or purchase firearms are rescinded until you are adjucated metally sane (which, for some people, may never happen). I know someone who went through a particularly nasty divorce and it drove him crazy... he called someone threatening violence, and the local sheriff came by and removed their (rather extensive) firearm collection. To test it he applied to get his firearms returned - "Nope, you have a record of mental illness, you need a judge to overturn that"... as it turns out, the firearms by then were long gone anyway - they sent them to the shredder.
It sounds (to me) the whole "Donna's Law" thing is putting yet another needless gun control law out there... that it's in Alabama (which is well known as a traditionally gun-friendly state) likely isn't because Alabama mental health issues are so dire; it's my suspicion that, being a gun friendly state, it will be used by the AGN's (Anti-Gun Nuts) as a stepstone to implement ban lists nationwide...
I just looked at the "Donna's Law" website - it reminds me of the TV ads where you have to give to the animal rescue squad or PETA because of the poor, shivering, sad looking puppies... It reeks of emotion and is lacking in common sense. If you're a danger o yourself or others, you're ALREADY ON a do not sell list. You ALSO have the right NOT to pick up or purchase a firearm. It reeks of a ploy to expand firearms prohibition.
It sounds (to me) the whole "Donna's Law" thing is putting yet another needless gun control law out there... that it's in Alabama (which is well known as a traditionally gun-friendly state) likely isn't because Alabama mental health issues are so dire; it's my suspicion that, being a gun friendly state, it will be used by the AGN's (Anti-Gun Nuts) as a stepstone to implement ban lists nationwide...
I just looked at the "Donna's Law" website - it reminds me of the TV ads where you have to give to the animal rescue squad or PETA because of the poor, shivering, sad looking puppies... It reeks of emotion and is lacking in common sense. If you're a danger o yourself or others, you're ALREADY ON a do not sell list. You ALSO have the right NOT to pick up or purchase a firearm. It reeks of a ploy to expand firearms prohibition.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Yes....according to the link to the bill itself. It also states that the bill would provide a way for one to remove themselves from the list in the future, should they change their mind(exact same way they used to put themselves on the list).
So what's the real purpose? I seriously doubt if it's as nefarious as many here want to imply. Seems the way on and off the list is pretty simple, yet does not allow for anyone but the individual themselves to do it. No real direct link to red flag or court ordered scenarios. Seems to be only for folks who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's/Dementia to protect themselves and their loved ones from the [progressive disease. May also be helpful to those who are feel depressed or have other issues in their life, where they feel unsafe having possession of firearms. While many of us can say, why not just stay away, it's not always that easy. This seems to give folks an option for a temporary scenario, without loosing their right to possess for the long term. Is it needed? I dunno, but as I read it, it will not affect anyone who does not want it to. That seems to be the biggest fear I see here.
Airborne Falcon
Member
Seems like if you vote for anti-2A candidates you should be added to the list.
N555
Member
Seems like they really like their lists.
This was my question. Could you renounce your right to free speech? I doubt it. I think that is the point of a right.
I do know that there are similar questions about contractually accepting alternative despite resolution as a precondition to being hired, as a way to surrender your rights to redress through the courts.
Read the bill. Note the emphasis on patients under mental care who know themselves to be vulnerable to suicidal/violent episodic behavior
>
> "the establishment of a database operated by the Alabama Department of Mental
> Health for individuals to volunteer their own names onto a Do-Not-Sell list...."
>
Note: Alabama does not have a red flag law. Hence the concept of self-declared 'No-Sell' for use by people who know they are at self-risk
Going into frantic Bumper-Sticker-Slogan mode does not help our 2A-preservation cause when good people start to point out the obvious.
.
>
> "the establishment of a database operated by the Alabama Department of Mental
> Health for individuals to volunteer their own names onto a Do-Not-Sell list...."
>
Note: Alabama does not have a red flag law. Hence the concept of self-declared 'No-Sell' for use by people who know they are at self-risk
Going into frantic Bumper-Sticker-Slogan mode does not help our 2A-preservation cause when good people start to point out the obvious.
.
Last edited:
DustyGmt
Member
Am I off in my observation or is something peculiar going on here. Does it seem that more pro gun agenda items get done with an anti in the white house. Seems like this has been true of the last couple anti administrations and with "pro gun" presidents things seem to go worse for us....
AlexanderA
Member
Yes, because guns are a convenient football for both sides. If the agenda of either side was actually adopted, they'd no longer have anything to fundraise over.
- Status
