DOD policy re: domestic violence conviction and military issued weapons

[Ladybug]

You believe that God came down and gave John Lee Malvo the right to own a gun, and the government cannot take that right away.

I disagree and say that government DOES give/deny us rights, even if we like to believe that they don't.

I have a right to free speech, but I cannot call the White House and say that I have planted a bomb in the Oval Office. I have a right to own a gun, but not if I get dishonerably discharged from the military. The list goes on - pick any so-called "right" and I can give you the limitations of that right... limitations set by the government. The SAME government that gives me those rights. Most people in England believe in the same God I do, yet they do not have the privilege of owning a gun. Why? Because their government does not allow them to.

 

[stringj]

I have a right to free speech, but I cannot call the White House and say that I have planted a bomb in the Oval Office.

You certainly can! Does the government somehow physically stop you from doing so! There would definitely be repercussions if you did, but that is called being responsible for your actions. Rights have responsibilities associated with them but that in no way reduces the rights to privileges.

Jerry

 

[Ladybug]

Rights have responsibilities associated with them

That is my whole point.

All I am saying is, whether you believe God gave you the right to own a gun or not, it doesn't really matter as long as government is there to enforce that right. Whether or not you agree with it, government does tell us when/how/if we can carry a gun or exercise freedom of speech. Our constitution tells us that we have certain Rights because God gave them to us. But the REAL reason we enjoy those rights is because of the Constitution, which is given to us by our government. The Taliban told the Afghan people that God denied them the right to walk down the street with their face showing. Regardless of what God REALLY wanted, it was the government that had the power to grant/deny rights.

So, my point is, the government does have a right to limit our Freedoms, and they do so every day. So, then the question becomes, to what exent? And that is all we are really arguing about... I am against 90% of gun-control legislation, and the exent to which our Second Amendment is being whittled away. But I do still believe that governement has a certain right to take guns away from certain people.... I can't get anyone to answer my question - should ANYONE be allowed to own a gun? If you take your argument to the extreme, then even felons should be allowed to own guns. I am just saying that I believe domestic abuse offenders should be on the list of people who should NOT be allowed to own guns.

I think I've made my point, and am now just repeating myself... I don't want to hijack this thread (too late, I'm afraid!) so I'll stand by...

 

[stringj]

I think I've made my point

Yes, you have. The point you've made is that you are ignorant of what rights are. That's OK, I'm ignorant about a lot of things too, but what my rights are isn't one of them. I am not the person to explain it to you (I don't have the vocabulary or the writing skills), but hopefully some of the people on this board who taught me what freedom and rights are will come to your rescue. Hanging out in Legal and Political and reading threads will do wonders for the brain and the soul.

Jerry

 

[tyme]

hkmp5sd, many countries claim extra-territorial jurisdiction over their citizens for various serious crimes. The U.S. even has one for taking underage "partners" out of the country for the purpose of avoiding statutory rape laws.

ladybug, yelling fire in a crowded theater is specifically not part of your right to free speech. The government may not limit free speech at all. They can only determine what is and is not free speech.

Similarly, they should not be deciding what reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership are permissible. If the Supreme Court wants to tell me that guided missile cruisers fall outside of the definition of "arms" as written in the 2nd Amend., I won't agree, but that's life. If Congress wants to then establish a licensing system for those wishing to own guided missile cruisers, that's cool too. But it would be clearly incorrect to declare an m-16 as "not an arm" and therefore subject to any regulations Congress deems necessary.

You may consider the difference to be wholly semantics, but I think the difference is quite significant.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Ladybug, again, without going into dramatics, please state why ex post facto laws are Constitutional. In fact, please find in the Constitution what it says about ex post facto laws. After all the hand-wringing about government having the right to limit rights, please show me where the government has a right to pass ex post facto laws. I have asked you for this answer specifically. Instead, I am getting wheedling about the government having the "right" to limit our freedoms. No one is sayng that felons should own guns (that's an argument for another day.) What is being discussed here is WHY it is permissible for the government to take away a CONSTITUTIONAL right for a MISDEMEANOR with an EX POST FACTO law. And, for the umpteenth time, I ask again, would it then be the government's "right" to take away a Constitutional right for other misdemeanors such as spitting on the sidewalk, unsafe lane change ,etc., etc.?

One more time, actual assault and battery is a FELONY in all states. The issue of domestic violence has already been adressed. It doesn't matter if the crime is misdemeanor domestic violence or misdemeanor public urination, the point is that it is a MISDEMEANOR. Get past the emotion of "it's wife beating!!!!" and come to the logic of the discussion.

 

[fallingblock]

Ladybug.....

The answer to your question:

"I can't get anyone to answer my question - should ANYONE be allowed to own a gun?"

Is yes, it is every citizen's unalienable right to keep and bear arms. No exceptions.

Until, that is, the individual citizen has demonstrated a willingness to abuse the rights of others by criminal misuse of the firearm.

It then becomes an infringement of the rights of others and thus subject to restriction by society.

Only after the criminal misuse has occurred may the government legitimately step in and restrict the right of an individual citizen.

Any broad-spectrum 'class' type of infringement of rights (such as the proscription of firearms purchase by those with dishonorable discharges) is not constitutionally defensible. There is no demonstrated infringement of the rights of others which justifies denial of the citizen's RKBA on the basis of a DD.

Do these abuses of the concept of unalienable rights exist? Yes.

Are they constitutionally valid? No.

If a DV felony conviction (I would like to see it limited to firearms offenses) has been recorded against an offender, only after the event may the citizen's RKBA be infringred, not before and certainly not retroactively!

 

[Al Norris]

Ladybug,

Read the following:

The Virginia Declaration of Rights
June 12, 1776
Authored by George Mason.

1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Now compare to what Jefferson wrote:

Declaration of Independence
Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776
Authored by Thomas Jefferson.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Many are the documents that can be read, in which the central themes of the colonies evoke the two above. That man has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, given by the fact of birth is one central theme. Another is that governments ought to be and should be instituted by the people and the powers of governance are derived from the same, for the good of the whole. And finally, that the rights of the people not only predate the government but are pre-eminent to any powers of the government; such that it is the duty of the government to protect those rights.

Any other notion to the contrary on the formation of this nation leads one to suspect that such a dissenter to be unread as to American history.

Now as to the other notion that the 2nd amendment holds to anything other than defence of self and community against a tryannical government...well, a carefull reading of the arguements of the federalist and anti-federalists should suffice to clear this matter up. But for now, consider the original wording by it's author, James Madison: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Now that these basics are out of the way, why should anyones rights be taken away for an offense that is not a felony? The Lautenberg Act does not even compell a direct conviction. Merely an accusation is enough to strip one of ones right. And you agree with this?

 

[spartacus2002]

The main problem with the Lautenberg Amendment is twofold:
1. It gives a misdemeanor conviction the same power to deprive as a felony but without the requisite due process; and
2. The definition of "Crime of Domestic Violence" is EXTREMELY broad. It covers far more than the stereotypical "wife-beating". IIRC, it includes any physical violence against anyone the prosecutor can paint as having a close or semi-family relationship with the alleged abuser. It applies if the convicted offender was at the time of the offense:
--a current or former spouse, parent or guardian of the victim,
--a person with whom the victim shared a child in common,
--a person who was cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or
--a person who was similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim;

As for felonies and rights, I have come to the conclusion that even felons still have the right to self-defense, and thus should have their 2d amendment rights restored after completion of sentence. After all, it is not the possession but the use of such firearms that we are concerned with.

 

[Hal]

LB,
Let me clarify re: PFC Lynch.

PFC Lynch was/is a supply clerk. In other words, she was/is in a non combatant support role.
This role fits rather well with how the military would treat a Lautenberg exempted individual of either sex. They would be regulated to a support role, and not issued a firearm. That's all fine and dandy, until TSHTF, as it did in Lynch's case. Once their company came under fire, both Lynch and her CO would have faced felony charges if/when she had been given a firearm to defend herself and the rest of the company.
Then there is also the part about her being assigned the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company. An inadvertant order by a CO, that she drive or even ride in a truck containing ammunition, would be a strict Lautenberg violation. Again, both Lynch and the person ordering her to that position could be up for felony charges.
I believe that's the intent of the memo,,,since the strict letter of the law is impossible to enforce,,,,the gvt simply exempts itself. The Marine Corps memo is probably only the first we'll see. I fully expect the other branches of the military, followed by federal law enforcment agencies, to issue the same "proclamations".

As far as the soldiers frm Ft. Bliss - What they did was AFTER the fact. ie: After they returned from deployment. - - You really need to look up and understand what ex post facto means.