Posted on 05/27/2010 4:57:46 AM PDT by marktwain
Apropos the discussion below, what do you folks think of this Oregon county juvenile court probation policy (thanks to commenter Philistine for the pointer) (emphasis added)?
4. You are to only live with your parent(s) or court-approved guardian(s) ....
11. You are not to posses any weapon of any description including but not limited to firearms, knives, nunchucks, or martial arts weaponry. You are not to possess any ammunition or weapon replicas. You are not to possess any dangerous animal. You are not to involve yourself in activities in which weapons are used, including but not limited to hunting or target shooting without prior permission from a probation officer. You are not to remain in any vehicle, dwelling or building wherein anyone possesses a weapon, ammunition, weapon replica or dangerous animal.
It’s true that, as some commenters on the earlier thread noted, the parents remain free to keep possessing guns at home: They can just make clear to the court that their children can’t comply with the conditions of probation. Then, if the court sticks with its policy it will then sentence the child to jail or juvenile detention instead (for the entire length of the term, since staying at the parents’ home would violate the probation conditions for post-incarceration probation as much as for instead-of-incarceration probation).
Of course, very few parents would want that, even if self-defense is very important to them. So the question is: To what extent is it proper for the court to use its undoubted power over the juvenile offender — which includes the power to sentence the offender to juvenile detention instead of probation — in a way that strongly pressures the offender’s parents (and any other adult relatives who live with the offender and his parents) to give up their right to bear arms for several years? There’s also the separate question of the breadth of the policy (especially given that weapon seems to include knives, and might also include baseball bats and other such things), but that strikes me as a somewhat less conceptually interesting issue.
this is what happens when you compromise principles for decades...
it was once where the only reason you could not possess a firearm was if you were a convicted felon....now they have all kinds of reasons....i lost my rights under a restraining order once....ex wife filed for it....never touched her, never was arrested for anything....but i had to surrender my firearms by a judges order....i was dumbfounded to say the least....
I suppose the criminal could just go to jail instead. Yep, that’s what can happen, the criminal can just go to jail instead.
Well since probation is a sentence in lieu of incarceration, I don’t really have a problem with this, PROVIDED their rights are restored after the probation. Likewise, we wouldn’t arm prisoners.
However, I do not support revoking the 2nd Amendment rights to released felons. If they are a danger to society, they should be locked up.
It’s about the Rights of the parents, not about the rights of the offenders.
my bad, I didn’t read the whole thing.
But... how else are they going to get people to give up their rights? They won’t voluntarily do it, and the legislative and executive branch are too closely accountable to voters.
Open to your suggestions on how to subject people to tyranny under our system without going through the courts.
(/sarc)
:-)
If I did it any other way, I'd never be able to get any sleep at night!
my favorite is the “give up guns in exchange for dropping charges” ploy used by persecutors eh,,, prosecutors.
prosecutors do not seek truth, they seek wins at all costs to the defendant. (see Nifong)
If it were my kid, I’d simply say “Ye reap what ye sow,” and off to jail he/she goes.....
Tough on criminals only goes so far (like most things) on FR.
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.