Time to repeal the Lautenberg Amendment.

I'll see your repeal of Lautenberg and raise you a repeal of the GCA 1968

Jefferson

I'll see your repeal of Lautenberg and raise you a repeal of the GCA 1968

Click to expand...

And I see your repeal of the GCA of 1968, and I raise you a repeal of the import ban (bush 1) and a repeal of NFA.

Done and done

Jefferson

I think Lautenberg is doable
In fact...I kind of wish that was one of the things worked on during HR 2640

Interesting how some don't want released felons - sometimes those released from serving time for misdemeanors - to have gun rights. At the same time, if you look at your state code on administration of prisons, you may find provisions for the state to arm prisoners who are serving their time.

Years ago - and I don't know if things have changed - Utah and Canada both had provisions for arming prisoners.

Personally - and I have said it before - I think everyone has a right to defend the lives of their loved ones and themselves and to have the tools with which to do so. Why should a felon's children not have the same right to life that yours and mine do?

Personally - and I have said it before - I think everyone has a right to defend the lives of their loved ones and themselves and to have the tools with which to do so. Why should a felon's children not have the same right to life that yours and mine do?

Click to expand...

I think there is only a couple of things that should bar you. Serious, violent crimes like murder, rape. Only the big stuff. Felony shop lifting, should not bar you.
But nowadays thats like arguing we should get rid of seat belt laws and similar things. Wont happen.

One could argue that "if you can't do the time..."

Honestly I have no problem with either having only violent felons prohibited from owning guns or most felons. I say you should take responsibility for your actions either way. You break the law, you live with what you've done.

Now one could argue that (this would appeal to a Christian audience best, I'd guess) that we should forgive those who have wronged us. I say: Forgiveness is given, but TRUST must be EARNED. I forgive you for what you did, but I have yet to trust you until you demonstrate trustworthiness.

That being said, I also say that there should be an appropriate method where you can get your rights back through the courts, not a draconian way, but definitely more than a "I'm sorry for what I did. Can I have a gun now?" Sincerity optional.

And to further confuse you and destroy my own argument, it could also be argued that the kind of mentality that I am demonstrating ("It's ok, because I'd never commit a felony" - that mentality) is similar to the whole "They won't come for my hunting rifle" thing that we should avoid.

Holy crap I'm like a liberal. I can't even hold my own side of an argument!

and I raise you a repeal of the import ban (bush 1)

Click to expand...

This is a paperwork ban. All that is required to do away with it is for ATF to change their opinion of the definition of "sporting". If they simply admit that target shooting is a sport, 99% of all firearms would be legal for import.

I have argued for some time that if you are released from prison ALL your rights should be restored. Real easy concept, and if you are to dangerous to society to have ALL your rights then you should not be released! Keep the real bad guys in jail for a long time. Because we all know that released felons can't possibly get a weapon! But even if they don't then they would never think to use a knife or a stick or a .........

I think Lautenberg is doable
In fact...I kind of wish that was one of the things worked on during HR 2640

Click to expand...

You better pray there are no amendments, period. A good reason to oppose any gun bill is so that all the anti-gun stuff doesn't get trotted out again and hung all over the bill.

That's how "Lautenberg" occurred in the first place.

I have no problem with felons having guns. If they can be let out of jail, then (presumably) they're fit to mingle with everyone else. Otherwise, why let them out?

Any other hijacks?

Violent felons get let out of prison because they have served their time, get parole, or the prison is over crowded. Reahabilitation is never a condition of release which is why 60-80% go straight back in again within two years.

Sorry, but I think that they should not be allowed easy access to guns to go use on their next victim.

The Lautenburg Ammendment is a bad joke. Most states have already modified their laws so that if someone that needs a gun for work is facing charges can attend anger management classes or get defered prosecution and get the charges dropped. So what it has done is created two clases of people; those already in LE/ Military and those who are not.

The whole point of the law was to stop these people from using their duty weapons to kill/threaten their families. For the military this was pointless as in the US access is quite restricted already and can be easily expanded on by the commander. For the LEO you have a whole different set of challenges that I won't even go into.

The ammendment is fairly pointless and needs to go away.

Lautenburg...blech.

RealGun

You better pray there are no amendments, period. A good reason to oppose any gun bill is so that all the anti-gun stuff doesn't get trotted out again and hung all over the bill.

That's how "Lautenberg" occurred in the first place.

Click to expand...

And the Hughes Amendment (now known as Title 18, Section 922(o), the odious machine gun ban), which was tacked onto the FOPA in '86.

What I've always wondered is: Why don't some pro-gun House or Senate members add pro-gun amendments to some "must pass" legislation? The other side does it regularly (and often secretly) - what's wrong with us doing the same?

For that matter, what would be wrong with someone in the House sponsoring a bill with the innocuous/boring title of the "Excise Tax Corrections and Enhancement Act of 2007," part of which would be to repeal Title 18, Section 922(o) as a revenue raising measure. It could be coupled with some inconsequential raising and lowering of various other excise taxes (which would all end up being revenue neutral, except for the 922(o) stuff) that have no relationship to guns, so that maybe the bill could pass under the radar.

This is a scary law. I thought 4th amendment sort of kinna protected against that.
Scary

Forgiveness is given, but TRUST must be EARNED.

Click to expand...

Either our rights exist seperate from the government or they are simply privileges to be given and taken away at whim. Trust is not not a factor in a right. It is with a privilege. Even if we don't trust them, we still respect a felon's right to free speech and a right not to incriminate himself. You can't search a man's house without a warrant because he was convicted of a felony 10 years ago.

If trust is a factor in our rights, it is simply a matter of opinion whether the average person can be "trusted" to own a firearm.

Civil rights cannot be revoked.
At least that's what I've always understood.
They can be suspended briefly during the time of incarceration, but must be restored as swiftly as possible.
If we can deny basic rights to any portion of the population who are not currently under sentence, It provides precedence to deny those self-same rights to any other "undesirable" segment of the population, for example: Persons with a median income of less than $1,000,000 may not own firearms as the majority of violent criminals come from lower income brackets.
Reasonable restrictions usually aren't.

Jefferson

IMHO, the problem is due in large part to the change in definition of a felony. Used to be, I think, that a felony was one of a very few crimes, the perpetrators of which were all assumed to be deserving of death, and got it.

There weren't very many felonies in the common law; maybe murder, treason, armed robbery, and rape? When crimes defined as felonies were few and felons got hanged, we did not have these kinds of problems.

These days we have inadvertent paperwork-crime felonies.

Oh, and I'm still against the (official) death penalty because I don't trust the state to do anything right.

Oh, forgot arson, but I mean arson in the original sense, that is, setting fire to an inhabited dwelling in the night time. I hear tell that the insurance companies have since persuaded the various .govs to expand and loosen the definition.

The Lautenberg Amendment is an offense against the 2nd Amendment of the highest order, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for ANY politician to vote to repeal it.

No politician wants to be seen as "defending domestic abusers." The first Congresscritter who brings this up will be tarred and feathered by proponents of the Amendment, the media and anti-domestic abuse advocates.

Since we don't do rollback, let's try this one on for size. No new gun legislation without a clear and legal path specified in the law as to the process for repairing government screwups, appeals, and reinstatement of "rights." They can be specific in the conditions under which rights are denied, they can be just as specific as to restoration.

Doesn't one need a conviction in order to be put on "the list"? Form 4473 asks about convictions, nothing about arrests or complaints. The article at BFA talks about a woman who was put on "the list" because of a complaint made by her ex. That seems like a government screw-up, and she should contact the ATF, the FBI, or a lawyer to get that fixed. Of course, there could be more to the story, like the woman was under a restraining order, but then she would only be on "the list" for the duration of the order, and afterwards she would be able to own and buy guns again. Note, I am not by any means defending this bull**** law, I just want to get the facts striaght.