macadore said:
fiddletown said:
Do you have any idea what sort of background check the police go through?
I renewed my concealed carry license Sunday and the instructor said we went through the same background check as the police.
Sorry, but I do believe that you've been misinformed. From my experience and knowledge as a volunteer for our police department, our vetting process is as I've described. And it's my understanding that this sorting of vetting process is common among police forces in most cities. I'd be very surprised if they didn't do that sort of thing in San Antonio.
macadore said:
fiddletown said:
A background interview with a panel of senior officers;
A psychiatric evaluation;
A polygraph examination;
His friends and neighbors are personally interviewed.
The polygraph is as reliable as voodoo. I wouldn't agree to one of those under any circumstances. As for neighbors, there is no evidenced that they are reliable character witnesses. I have a neighbor who despises my family because she had a run-in with my mouthy alcoholic mother-in-law over her cats. My mother-in-law and her cats have since passed on, but that neighbor would still be vindictive and irrationally biased.
Nonetheless, that is the sort of process to which police officers are subject in most cities.
kingpin008 said:
...What gives you the right to dismiss an entire group of people, just because they ran afoul of a law, regardless of the fact that they've paid their dues to make it right? ...
[1] In any case that group had been "dismissed" by Congress under the GCA. So we are left with two questions: can that be changed? and should that be changed?
[2] And what the "dues" are for a felony conviction is a legislative question. The current "official" price for a felony includes a loss of the right to possess a gun (and a loss of voting rights in some places). There are also a number of "unofficial" components to the overall price of a felony conviction: loss of the right to practice some professions; debarment from some jobs requiring one to be bondable; social ostracism, etc.
kingpin008 said:
...There are many things that an individual can do to earn themselves a felony these days - many of them having not a thing to do with firearms or hurting people. How can you justify stripping people who have committed no violence and who haven't misused a firearm the right to defend themselves?...
[1] There are certainly non-violent crimes that hurt people.
[2] Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime.
[3] Is that a perfect result? No, but we'll have to wait for Heaven for perfect justice. And overall, I don't see it as necessarily unreasonable that part of the total price tag for a felony is loss of gun rights in perpetuity.
kingpin008 said:
...Seems pretty discriminatory to me...
Discrimination isn't necessarily wrong. We discriminate all the time -- every time we make a choice. As a society, we've [quite properly] decided that it is wrong to discriminate on the bases of certain characteristics, like race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
But would you hire a someone who had been convicted of child endangerment as a babysitter for your children? If you wouldn't, isn't that discriminatory?
