Posted on 08/15/2009 6:26:44 AM PDT by epow
“that sounds a lot like going through case by case.”
Only to someone stretching for the worst possible interpretation. I did not say “...examine *all* cases on their individual merits...” nor was this a legislative proposal.
Perhaps you think such privileges should be reserved only for you, but people in a discussion have the prerogative of clarifying their positions as the discussion continues.
“how about this guideline: you are convicted of committing an act that is defined by the law as a felony, you do not own a gun.”
No, that gives the government too much power to interfere with human rights.
“or is a businessman who commits securities fraud more deserving of a gun than an inner city youth who robs someone of $20?”
You’re coming at this from the wrong side. Both the businessman and the slum rat are *born* with the God-given right to self defense.
There is no question of being “deserving.” Man cannot rightly take away a right that God has bestowed, unless there is some overriding reason that justifies it.
The state must consider *before the fact* whether there is sufficient reason to deprive either of his right. To impose a blanket prohibition on all who are convicted of some offense arbitrarily deemed a felony — or domestic abuse — is to fail in that duty.
I kinda knew that, it just didn’t say. My parents lived in Simsbury, thank God I was old enough I was out of the the house. Only had to visit, what a bunch of lame farts up there!
Honestly, if someone mentioned Simsbury to me I’d think of the one just over the PA line, not CT. If the state isn’t obvious what good is the article?
76 years old. A collection of weapons.
LEOs knew. What, he used the flag at white house e-mail?
This is bat$#!t crazy.
Its on going and has been on-going.
The majority of Law Enforcement agree with gun seizures/control as well. Local Police, State police, Border Patrol, DEA, ATF, FBI, Sheriffs, Constables, US Marshal’s, ICE agents, Homeland Security. All the same.
Generally speaking, When ever ANY law or regulation is passed, it is an invitation for more laws and regulations, which ultimately means NO LIBERTY OR FREEDOM.
This is what has happened.
Not under The Messiah and his pit bull Eric Holder, who learned his methodology under Jackboot Janet. The difference was that BATF was part of Treasury then, so AG Reno had no direct control of them. Since BATFE was moved under Justice after 9-11, the AG, now Holder, is in their chain of command.
Right at the bottom of the page, it says
"Record-Journal | 11 Crown Street, PO Box 915 | Meriden, CT 06450"
Here's a Map
Swith to aerial or bird's eye view and you can see that there is indeed a mobile home park there.
Go to Google Maps and stick this address (15 Hosford Bridge Road, Wallingford, CT) and you can get a ground level view, although from a different street. It's not that big of a mobile home community.
It's not even clear if the then 17 y/o was ever charged, let alone convicted of anything. An arrest does not a felon make, nor if he even owned any of the guns in the home.
Not to mention his IVth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, a warrant alone does not make for a reasonable "search". A "knock and smash" raid at Oh dark thirty takes a pretty special set of circumstances to justify to a court of law. I guess they didn't figure on the folks being up at 6 AM. According to a search and seizure warrant signed by U.S. District Court Judge Joan G. Margolis in New Haven Thursday, the agents were authorized to seize firearms, ammunition, holsters and destructive devices. They were also looking for personal property that identified the residents, including canceled mail, deeds, leases, rental agreements, photographs, personal telephone books, diaries, utility and telephone bills, statements, identification documents and keys. Does that mean they weren't even sure they had right "felon"?
The "Magistrate Judge" who issued the warrant is not even a "real judge", she was not appointed by the President, but rather by the judges of the court, to handle routine matters, so as to free up the 'real' judges, to hear cases. I think they'd better take a look at her practices.
That one might actually be just that. It's not especially large, maybe a dozen or so homes. Has an modest sized apartment building on one side, and single family homes across the street. In any event, I'll bet it's a whole lot quieter than most public housing facilities.
It's not even the right section of the law, but even that doesn't say such "groups" (actually persons) can't live in a home where guns are accessible.
18 USC 622 (g) provides
It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. .
922(d) forbids selling or transferring firearms to such persons.
Notice that there were no charges, thus no due process, but they kept the guns anyway, in clear violation of the Vth amendment.
Are the *guns* guilty of violating 922(g) or (d) or what?
The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund needs to fund this guy's appeal to get his firearms back.
Well up until 1968, when Connecticut's own Senator Dodd, father of the current Senator Dodd, honchoed the Gun Control Act through Congress.
So yea, I'd support going back to the Status Quo Ante. It's not like the dangerous ones don't go armed anyway.
There is a provision for such "forgiveness" already in the law, but Congress has refused to allow any money to be spent to implement it.
But the point is, the restriction should be part of each individual sentence, not a blanket restriction on all persons who might have committed a crime *punishable* (not punished) by more than one year.
You do realize that this provision of the law even applies to people whose convictions were *before* the law was passed, don't you? That's why the BATFE phrases things the way they do, talking about prohibited groups, rather than prohibited individuals.
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.