Posted on 10/07/2007 7:35:04 AM PDT by SJackson
You're right, it's a classic example of the governments inability to protect us from predators, even when the preditors are in their hands.
However Cho would have been released at some point, when he was he'd have been ineligible to purchase a firearm legally. But could have from a practical perspective since Virginia is one of the states that doesn't report these commitments. That's what the bill remedy. I think Cho should have been barred from purchasing a firearm by more than trust in his honesty, though I acknowledge he would have obtained one illegally had this law been in place.
That's not the case anywhere. In Illinois, which has some of the strictest regulations around including registration of gunowners, that's not the case. You're presenting a strawman.
I agree.
to quote TJ:
"That which is done by government will be done poorly & at an unbearable cost to the citizens & to Liberty". (TJ was CORRECT about MANY things!!!)
free dixie,sw
That's already happened to a friend of mine. She had to remove all the guns in the house and put them at her father's because her husband committed a minor felony (in some states it's only a misdemeanor). She can't have any firearms in the house because he's barred from firearms ownership.
Wrong! In CT there can't be any firearms in the house if someone in the residence is barred from owning firearms.
The concern is as much about how the bill will be interpreted and enforced as how it is written.
If they can’t get the plain language of the 2nd Amendment right, why should we believe that this will be used to help gun owners rather than hurt them.
Remember, it’s McCarthy and Schumer. What other legislation have they introduced that was good for gun owners?
The problem I have with this bill is that it removes due process of law from the issue. Now, people can have their rights taken away without being able to plead their case in court. It’s assuming people are guilty and making those people prove they are innocent. This is bad juju!
The other part that I have issues with is the “rights restoration” segment. This very requirement has passed in bills before and the BATFE has in every instance re-allocated the money to other areas such as enforcement.
third thing is that this bill was introduced by McCarthy. This alone should send up red flags. The fact that the NRA is backing it makes me VERY concerned.
If GOA is right, the NRA will be finished. I hope they realize just how dangerous this gamble is.
Mike
I don’t disagree, but the removal of due process is a function of the 68 law and the mid 80s revision. “Restoration” of rights, whatever that is, is a difficult process. My understanding near impossible, though this law might make it a bit easier. In my view this isn’t a big deal from a pro-gun perspective, but the GOA is making it into something it isn’t. It’s a very mild positive.
Not wrong because I clearly cited Illinois. In CT, that's not a federal issue. It's wrong, but you need to complain to the state.
Its is fer da good and betterment of da Fatherland mine Komrade. You should be honored to do your part. You must be a good citizen of the new Fatherland. Or do you have something to hide from us perhaps? I you aren't guilty you have absolutely nothing to worry about./sarcasm Repeat this till you believe it.
Another reason why NRA will never get a membership from me. It is infested with Secons Ammendment compromising Nanny State Supporting Wimps.
Does that mean if someone checks into AA with a drinking problem, they can never legally purchase a new firearm?
I simply pointed out that in CT if a member of the household is barred from owning firearms, there can't be any firearms in the house.
Up until the Clinton years, rights restoration wasn’t that difficult. Under Janet Reno, the BATF reallocated funds to enforcement and since that happened in 1993, there hasn’t been a single person to have gotten past the BATF part of the process.
This will not change and this should scare the crap out of every person in the US. This isn’t a 2nd Amendment issue at all, it’s a civil rights issue. Just wait, this is just one more chip out of the block. They are looking to find reasons to deny people their rights. We have the right of due process and should be assumed innocent “until proven guilty in the court of law.” This is no longer the case. If we don’t stand now, when it’s our turn to face the same issue for something that we are or have done in the past, we won’t have support from anyone else.
Support of this bill is shortsighted and damned dangerous.
Mike
I believe the federal standard is commitment as a danger to self or others, essentially involuntary commitment. In Illinois voluntary commitment for drug or alcohol treatment, or any treatment, would bar you from firearm ownership until you’ve demonstrated compliance with your treatment regimen or for 5 years. That’s a state thing.
Beyond that, this bill relates to reporting of records, which in most (all?) cases are already public. It doesn't set the standards for revocation of firearm ownership rights, that was done decades ago. On balance it's a minor positive in my mind.
I am with you on the NRA. Not a dime of mine for 17 years.
I have a problem with people losing their rights without due process of law. It’s very Unconstitutional and should offend all of us. It shames me that there are people that see such action as “okay”. We are no longer innocent until proven guilty. Take our rights away because we “might” do something some day. Sorry, I can’t agree with that at all. Why should anyone have their rights taken away when they haven’t committed a crime and have to spend thousands of dollars and years of their life trying to get those rights back? It’s WRONG!
There is one thing that many people haven’t thought about. Much of our defense industry on the private side are owned and operated by veterans who will find themselves unable to own firearms if this passes. Some of these people have openly stated that they will shut their doors and bar sales to the Government if this bill passes and their rights are denied. Congress better think very carefully about the unintended consequenses of this bill before jumping to pass it.
Mike
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.