We're Now as Bad as Sex Offenders!

[CmdrSlander]

From the New Connecticut Law:

The bill establishes a first in the nation statewide dangerous weapon offender registry:

The bill creates a first in the nation statewide dangerous weapon offender registry (a handful of cities across the country have their own gun offender registries). This has been the top priority of urban mayors and the Police Chiefs Association for the last several years. Under the bill, individuals must register with DESPP if they have been convicted of any of more than 40 enumerated weapons offenses (mostly gun offenses) or another felony that the court makes a finding involved the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon . . .

Individuals must register with DESPP for a total of five years after their release into the community. During that time they must keep their registration address current at all times, and they must check in once per year, on the anniversary of their release, with local law enforcement in the town where they currently reside. Unlike Megan’s List, this registry will not be public. Instead, it will be available to law enforcement only.

Caught with a 30 round magazine made after the law goes into effect? In the eyes of law you're no better than someone who sexually assaults young children.

Welcome to the scum class, fellas.

This is getting bad. Really bad.

 

[Texan Scott]

Not WE, Slander ... not US. Felons. Convicted criminals who must register after release from prison.

We keep saying we want the current gun laws enforced... well, this is a tool for tracking convicted offenders. If you don't think their offense should be a felony, get active about changing overly restrictive law.

 

[il_10]

Felons make a great political whipping post, but the 2A doesn't specify exceptions; as a brief aside, nor do any of the other natural rights. If one shouldn't be entrusted to all the rights endowed by his creator and protected by the constitution, then he shouldn't be released from prison to begin with.

"enumerated weapon offenses" doesn't specify felony or not. But it doesn't matter. The Lautenberg amendment doesn't apply to just felonies either. Get into an argument with your spouse? Whoops. Forget that Glock mag in the back of your car for the commute to D.C.? Whoops. Sorry for you, pal, but you're not one of US, you're one of those evil people who messed up somewhere, and now you have to be tagged for all the LEO world to see. Eventually, the system is made public, then the scope of the charges is increased, and so on and so forth, just the same as all right-stripping legislation.

We've got to be consistent. To me that dictates arguing logically from a standpoint of true, robust individual liberty, which incorporates 2A integrally, and I think many (maybe even most) on this board view the issue the same way. The troubling part of that line of logic means that one MUST refuse to fall into the divide and conquer game. The only question that can be asked at the end of the road of the line of logic utilizing liberty for its ethic is "is he a free human?" Past that, nope, restriction of any kind should be fought.

It's not as safe. It's doesn't give you a warm and fuzzy feeling. But that's kinda what liberty is; the solace isn't in security, it's in the liberty itself.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The law does less than a probation officer, which most of these guys would have anyway.

 

[Hacker15E]

No more than everyone who has sex is a "sex offender", not everyone who owns or uses a firearms is a "dangerous weapon offender".

 

[leadaddict]

I think the OP’s point is the idea that doing something most of us do right now, buying new 30rd mags, will likely get you a felony and put on this offender list. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I think I see the point. Either way they are going to create a whole new class of ‘criminal’. And they are going to stigmatize those 'offenders' in the same way they do sex offenders. After all, it's for the kids...

 

[icanthitabarn]

But.. but.. but.. it's the first in the nation

 

[CmdrSlander]

I think the OP’s point is the idea that doing something most of us do right now, buying new 30rd mags, will likely get you a felony and put on this offender list. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I think I see the point. Either way they are going to create a whole new class of ‘criminal’. And they are going to stigmatize those 'offenders' in the same way they do sex offenders. After all, it's for the kids...

You understand well.

 

[hso]

Caught with a 30 round magazine made after the law goes into effect? In the eyes of law you're no better than someone who sexually assaults young children.

CmdrSlander,

That's a complete overreaction and completely untrue. The magazine ban will be a class D felony and isn't on the list of offenses that puts someone on the registry. You need to get your facts straight before posting that sort of hysteria.

As pointed out the law applies to violent felons upon their release.

As also pointed out, you'd expect those violent felons to be on probation with probation officers once released and that this registry does nothing that isn't already being done.

 

[Ryanxia]

I think the OP’s point is the idea that doing something most of us do right now, buying new 30rd mags, will likely get you a felony and put on this offender list. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I think I see the point. Either way they are going to create a whole new class of ‘criminal’. And they are going to stigmatize those 'offenders' in the same way they do sex offenders. After all, it's for the kids...

+1.

 

[JustinJ]

Felons make a great political whipping post, but the 2A doesn't specify exceptions; as a brief aside, nor do any of the other natural rights. If one shouldn't be entrusted to all the rights endowed by his creator and protected by the constitution, then he shouldn't be released from prison to begin with.

By that line of thinking convicted felons are entitled to firearms while in prison and not subject to search of their belongings. This is false as the 5th amendment states "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Loss of a right to own or possess firearms is perfectly constitutional so long as the individual was provided due process.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The idea that possessing any magazine that is both commonly in use and readily available would give you any class of felony should be an affront to any thinking person and the courts should throw the law out without even a minutes thought. But we are now living in an "Alice in Wonderland" era and rational thought and common sense don't seem to matter, even to moderators.

 

[barnbwt]

"Change places!" "No, wait, I meant; 'Change capacities!'"


TCB

 

[JRH6856]

CmdrSlander,

That's a complete overreaction and completely untrue. The magazine ban will be a class D felony and isn't on the list of offenses that puts someone on the registry. You need to get your facts straight before posting that sort of hysteria.

ROFL!!! That is just too funny.

 

[hovercat]

George Washington was a felon.

 

[22-rimfire]

I wouldn't mind if there were a list of all violent felons that is accessible to the public. I feel you loose some of your privacy when you are convicted of a violent felony. Most should probably stay in jail.

 

[il_10]

By that line of thinking convicted felons are entitled to firearms while in prison and not subject to search of their belongings. This is false as the 5th amendment states "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Loss of a right to own or possess firearms is perfectly constitutional so long as the individual was provided due process.

Quite so. I'm fully aware that restrictions placed upon the exercising of rights via due process exist and are fully within the scope of the Constitution. I'm not arguing that due process doesn't, or shouldn't, have the ability to deem a citizen incompetent to be the same and deprive a person of liberties. I AM arguing that when a person is released back among the populous, and is given once again status as a citizen, those rights should be restored unilaterally. If a person isn't competent to be a citizen and has been deemed the same via the courts, full justice to due process done? Don't let him out.

The same argument is applied frequently here claiming that police, military, etc. shouldn't be of a separate status from the rest of us mere "civilians." In the United States, there aren't dukes. There aren't kings. There are only citizens. I'm of the belief that that applies to the lower 'castes' as well.

 

[larryh1108]

I AM arguing that when a person is released back among the populous, and is given once again status as a citizen, those rights should be restored unilaterally. If a person isn't competent to be a citizen and has been deemed the same via the courts, full justice to due process done? Don't let him out.

Totally disagree. When a person serves his time, he is released back into society. However, part of his sentence and part of the result of him committing the crime is his loss of rights. That is a choice he made when he chose to do the crime he was convicted of. We cannot and should not keep them locked up forever because he can't vote or have a firearm. That's ludicrous. The loss of his rights is part of his sentence. It's a choice he made and he lives with the consequences. He made his own bed and now he gets to lie in it. He can be with his family and work and lead a good life otherwise. Living outside prison without these rights is still a lot better than sitting in a cell.

 

[JRH6856]

^^^^^This. (just don't get carried away and let everyone out)

 

[Cosmoline]

Convicted criminals who must register after release from prison.

Believe me if these people have their way ALL OF US will be in this boat. They want us all in prison or dead. The hate is profound and deep.

 

[barnbwt]

It's a choice he made and he lives with the consequences

Back in the "brutal old days" this adage wasn't quite as apt as it is today. When people demonstrated they could no longer be trusted in society, with no reasonable hope for redemption, they were removed from it--permanently. Without lifer's tying up the system, and no pot-heads and dealers on non-violent offenses, our system would be much less strained than it is now.

Food for thought (or have we "evolved" beyond where we were not 100 years ago? )

TCB

 

[larryh1108]

When people demonstrated they could no longer be trusted in society, with no reasonable hope for redemption, they were removed from it--permanently.

I believe this has been addressed with the three strike and you're out laws. The prisons may have a good percent of their population filled with non-violent offenders but some of them also deserve to be there. However imperfect the system is, it is still the system in place. Losing your rights to own a gun is a well known part of the sentence when you do what you did to be convicted. Our system does have provisions for first time offenders in non-violent crimes. It's not like every one in prison is truly a victim of irrational laws. If you're sitting in jail it's very likely that you deserved the sentence you got. With every system, there are those unjustly imprisoned but that is a very small exception. It's like saying we should ban all guns because of Sandy Hook. You can't absolve all of the felons because a very few are wrongly convicted.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

By that line of thinking convicted felons are entitled to firearms while in prison and not subject to search of their belongings. This is false as the 5th amendment states "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Loss of a right to own or possess firearms is perfectly constitutional so long as the individual was provided due process.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Even strong 2A supporters universally (or, close) support some form of gun gun control, at least at the felon level.

I am not so sure that the dangerous weaponry offender registry for felons is all that great. If going that far, than why not just a dangerous offender registry?

 

[JRH6856]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Even strong 2A supporters universally (or, close) support some form of gun gun control, at least at the felon level.

Need to read a little farther down to the 5th Amendment which says no one "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Liberty is the free exercise of natural rights. What the felon loses is not the right to keep and bear arms in self defense, that being a natural right, but by due process of law, he loses the liberty to exercise that right.

 

[larryh1108]

I am not so sure that the dangerous weaponry offender registry for felons is all that great. If going that far, than why not just a dangerous offender registry?

There has to be a database of convicted felons somewhere for an NICS check. I don't see where a specific database for dangerous offenders will serve any purpose. If they were convicted of a felony they are exempt from buying it anyway.