Who should be denied the right to own guns?

[Kynoch]

Might. But if "nothing else sticks?" Then the court has determined that they have not broken the law.

You want to lock them up anyway? Well, why did we let them out to begin with?

That's usually what this turns into: We'd be better off if those people weren't free to wander our streets and a gun charge is an easy way to send them back to prison without having to convict on a "real" reason.

What are you talking about? They would still in the possession of a gun. Depending on the situation (ex. illegal/unlicensed CCW) or person (felon) the charge might indeed be material.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, of course. You said "if nothing else sticks." If nothing else sticks then the only thing the court has on the person is possession of a firearm.

If possession of a firearm is the only thing they were (able to be convicted of) doing wrong, why do we care if they have a firearm?

If they were arrested, tried, and convicted of some violent CRIME, put them in jail for THAT.

What you seem to be saying, and what I was hinting at, is that folks generally want to say that these people should just plain be in jail, period. With no further wrong-doing on their part, we have the excuse for putting them back in jail because they were caught with a gun.

I'm saying, if they're up to no good (i.e. some violent crime), go ahead and lock them up for it. If they aren't then the gun charge is just a cheap and easy excuse to send them away which is what you really wanted to do all along, anyway.

"Hey, did that guy hurt someone, kill someone, rape, assault, threaten someone? What?"
"No he wasn't bothering anyone, but we caught him with a gun."
"Oh, thank god, we can go ahead and lock him up for that! I thought he was going to WALK!"

 

[Old Fuff]

The late RKBA fighter, Neal Knox often remarked, "Show me any gun control law that actually works the way it's supposed to." I don't think anyone ever successfully did. The various legislatures can pass laws until they are blue in the face, but they can't enforce them against the intended persons except after they are caught but not before.

As an easy example, take roadway speed limits. If someone decides to speed over the limit, they are unlikely to stop until they see flashing lights behind them.

Another one might be the various legal attempts to regulate and/or prohibit so-called controlled substances.

Prohibited persons who want a firearm go forth under the assumption they won’t get caught. This may or may not be the case, but it’s usually true that it’s after the fact that they’ve committed some act that the law was supposed to prevent them from doing.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t have laws, but rather that some careful consideration should be given as to how they can be enforced, and/or might be abused. As a general rule those statutes that are based on bans or some form of prohibition seem to be the least effective.

 

[JohnBT]

"Who should be denied the right to own guns in the USA?"

Children under 12. Or 9. Or maybe 14.

And does the psychiatrist have to actually meet the person before they can send in the name for banning? How many times? Is a written report required or just a phone call?

 

[Cee Zee]

I missed some of the options in my vote. Oops! That's what happens when you get old.

 

[jason41987]

ill just go with the way the second amendment was intended.. not a single US citizen should be denied the right to own a gun.. if they are then its not a right, its a privelage.. if someone commits a serious felony, then ideally they shouldnt be allowed in the general public anyway.. if a felon is released from prison, theyve completed their sentence, theyve paid their debt to society, they should have all rights returned to them

and did someone a couple posts above me say people under the age of 12 or 14? i started shooting at a much younger age than that.. i was taught by family members at a very young age

as for mental illness, ideally if you are a threat to others they should be locked up in a psychological ward and couldnt aquire guns anyway.. so the "absolutely anyone" still applies to these people as well.. if theyre locked up properly they wont be getting them anyway (though, who would dictate who needs to be locked up for psychological issues?)

bottom line is who do you give the authority to dictate who can or cannot have guns?.. once you make the declaration that you believe some people should be denied then you have actively given up a right, you have traded in that right for the promise of security and as we should all know when that happens you lose both... once you agree with the gun grabbers that some people should be denied they will take it upon themselves to choose who should be denied

 

[Sistema1927]

Here is the way it should be:

If you are incarcerated, you cannot have access to firearms. If we find that you should be released, you should have any prohibition removed.

If you are confined to a psychiatric hospital, you cannot have access to firearms. If you are adjudicated sane and released, you should have any prohibition removed.

In other words, if we allow you to circulate freely in society, you should be able to purchase, possess, carry, and enjoy firearms regardless of past history, national origin, gender, age, or any other distinguishing characteristic.

I am dead serious here. There isn't a single gun control law that keeps bad people from doing bad things, thus there should be no impediment put on anyone else from possessing these tools of freedom.

 

[patmccoy]

Who do I think should be denied the tool needed for self defense?

Only convicted violent felons who have not yet completed the terms of their sentencing.

 

[beatledog7]

The only people who should not be allowed to own firearms are:

- Those who have been adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to others or themselves and are thus either institutionalized or are thereafter under 24-7 supervision.

- Those who through due process of law have been convicted and subsequently incarcerated.

Anyone proclaimed safe to roam the streets is by definition thereby safe to own a gun because, as we all know, if he or she has access to free society and he or she really wants a gun, he or she will be able to get a gun. Laws to the contrary do not affect people who really badly want a gun.

 

[gym]

Anyone I choose not to have a gun should not have one. Because I am pretty darn smart.
It's just going to take me forever to get around to looking at all those applications.
Since there is no right answer to the question and it's designed to fail, my answer is as good as any other.

 

[Kynoch]

Who do I think should be denied the tool needed for self defense?

Only convicted violent felons who have not yet completed the terms of their sentencing.

There are a great many other tools...

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah, and they are just as effective for offense as defense, generally speaking. Which kind of gives the lie, yet again, to the whole premise.

 

[Kynoch]

Yes, of course. You said "if nothing else sticks." If nothing else sticks then the only thing the court has on the person is possession of a firearm.

If possession of a firearm is the only thing they were (able to be convicted of) doing wrong, why do we care if they have a firearm?

If they were arrested, tried, and convicted of some violent CRIME, put them in jail for THAT.

What you seem to be saying, and what I was hinting at, is that folks generally want to say that these people should just plain be in jail, period. With no further wrong-doing on their part, we have the excuse for putting them back in jail because they were caught with a gun.

I'm saying, if they're up to no good (i.e. some violent crime), go ahead and lock them up for it. If they aren't then the gun charge is just a cheap and easy excuse to send them away which is what you really wanted to do all along, anyway.

"Hey, did that guy hurt someone, kill someone, rape, assault, threaten someone? What?"
"No he wasn't bothering anyone, but we caught him with a gun."
"Oh, thank god, we can go ahead and lock him up for that! I thought he was going to WALK!"

I can think of a few. Let's say the defendant escaped the other, main charges because of:

* Tainted evidence.

* Compromised witnesses.

* Incompetent prosecution.

* Extraordinarily competent defense.

Guilty people go free daily (with everyone's knowledge) for these reasons and others. If they could still be convicted for illegally CCWing, that's one more bozo off the street.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Ridiculous partisan comments like this only serve to hurt our cause: All you're doing is helping to reinforce the negative stereotypes of gun owners amongst the general public. And considering the general public often gets to vote on our gun rights, that's a pretty dumb thing to do.

What, if we make nice on liberals they'll suddenly stop attacking us and our rights?

 

[Kynoch]

Yeah, and they are just as effective for offense as defense, generally speaking. Which kind of gives the lie, yet again, to the whole premise.

I would agree that a community/society that readily allows adults to carry pepper spray, tasers, stun guns, etc. and not firearms is one that is unfair/unbalanced on the subject.

 

[Kynoch]

What, if we make nice on liberals they'll suddenly stop attacking us and our rights?

"Ridiculous partisan comments like this only serve to hurt our cause: All you're doing is helping to reinforce the negative stereotypes of gun owners amongst the general public. And considering the general public often gets to vote on our gun rights, that's a pretty dumb thing to do."

What he said...

 

[MedWheeler]

Huntsman, number nine is a defective choice. Can you expand on whom you would include?

 

[316SS]

Anyone proclaimed safe to roam the streets is by definition thereby safe to own a gun because, as we all know, if he or she has access to free society and he or she really wants a gun, he or she will be able to get a gun. Laws to the contrary do not affect people who really badly want a gun.

I agree with you, but I'll point out that it's the "free society" bit that makes your argument valid. Truly effective gun control requires a totalitarian state, and vice versa.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

No one can have a right denied. Does a convicted criminal no longer have a Sixth Amendment right to a trial and council? No. It's an inalienable right. So is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. If a person cannot be trusted with arms out in society, that person cannot be trusted out in society at all. That's what life in prison and execution is all about.

Woody

 

[MedWheeler]

Number nine is a defective choice. There are millions of "non-US citizens" who are lawful permanent resident aliens. Unlike all those in the remaining choices, they are not currently barred from firearms ownership.

 

[Sam1911]

Let's say the defendant escaped the other, main charges because of:

So we use an otherwise pointless weapons charge to hang up someone that we can't convict because of impropriety or incompetence?

You know, I'd rather not have laws around just so can use to convict people we can't make a real conviction against.

Again, it's a bull-crap charge we can use to nail someone we just want to nail anyway.

In its own way just as much of a "technicality" legal snare as the technicalities that get some folks out of conviction when "everyone knows" they should be found guilty.

"Hey, we couldn't actually find you guilty of the serious crime you're charged with. But, ha ha, we're throwing you in jail anyway!" That sure makes me feel good.

 

[MedWheeler]

Bottom line for me is that there is no choice that matches my opinion. And that opinion is that any person who has been determined through due process to be a hazard to others in society, and has been separated from society (by institutionalization or imprisonment) for that reason, should not possess firearms. That prohibition could be up for review when such a threat is determined to no longer exist.

 

[Bexar]

Leftists, liberals; they are the ones doing the mass shootings anyway
Same for politicians

Yep...the assassins...the mass shooters...the rampage murderers have almost 100% been liberals, Democrats, socialists or affiliated with these groups.

 

[happygeek]

Who should be denied the right to own guns in the USA?

Where's the poll option "the same people who couldn't possess one in 1967"?

Back then you could have a military issue, real honest to God weapon of war, semi-auto carbine that used "hi-cap" detachable magazines shipped right to your front door

 

[BryanDavis]

Why?

Someone could for example suffer terribly from mental disease(s). They could be in and out of mental hospitals and other institutions and still legitimately have the right to vote. Should such people also have the RKBA? I think not.

And why should such people not have the RKBA? Do you think the mentally ill are somehow more prone to violence than the general population?

So you personally trust "such people" with the right to vote, but not the RKBA?

[sarcasm]But what if they vote for someone crazy?[/sarcasm]