Author Topic: I am a little surprised... (Read 528 times)

mosgood · « **on:** February 16, 2005, 09:38:13 AM »

About a few of these

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

* Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
* Fugitives from justice.
* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
* Illegal aliens.
* Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
* Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
* Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

john9001 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2005, 09:43:17 AM »

the restraining order and domestic violence laws are fairly new laws.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2005, 09:47:56 AM »

I see nothing surprising about any of that. I think some of those are improperly applied. But I can see valid reasons for all.

Leslie · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2005, 09:57:49 AM »

That last point was a bone of contention concerning the Police, as it would prevent some of them from carrying a gun. Therefore they could not do their job under those circumstances. The deal went to court I think all the way up to the SC. And I believe ithat particular item was relaxed, as it should be concerning Police. The standard for them is more strict than anyone else, and many times domestic violence could be construed as violence, and not simply a spat.

In other words, there were some wrongful convictions of Police officers concerning domestic violence, which may or may not have been, but according to the former rule they couldn't carry a gun even if suspected of that or hearsay. This is not fair to the officer and not in the best interest of the public.

Les

Les

weaselsan · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2005, 10:12:25 AM »

Also any Liberal who doesn't want to be branded as a hipocrite. With the exception of Rosy O'Donald who while demanding that no one should have a firearm, even for self defense. Walks around with two heavily armed goons, because her fat bellybutton is far more important than yours.

Leslie · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2005, 11:02:12 AM »

How do you know these things weaselsan?

Les

Flit · « **Reply #6 on:** February 16, 2005, 11:05:27 AM »

The Rosy thing is common knowledge

Maverick · « **Reply #7 on:** February 16, 2005, 11:54:45 AM »

Mosgood, What surprises you about what you posted?

Leslie · « **Reply #8 on:** February 16, 2005, 11:55:13 AM »

Well then dammit man, you think being a heavily armed goon is easy? Thank God for clients, or we might have to get a job.

Les

mosgood · « **Reply #9 on:** February 16, 2005, 12:30:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Mosgood, What surprises you about what you posted?

***Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.

I'm not really hip to what it takes to get a dishonorable discharge but I thought it had to do with a military code of laws, that might not be the same as a civilians. That being said, it's also a civilians right to bear arms so ....a different set of laws and judgements than the ones I follow can also decide whether or not someone can have the same rights, as a civilian becuase they were discharged, to bear arms.

***Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.

I guess this struck me as surprising until I realized that it would probably be in effect only while the court order was in effect.

***Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

I saw the word misdemeanor and thought that this could mean a lot of things that might not justify taking away someones "right to bear arms".

T0J0 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 16, 2005, 12:55:36 PM »

Good thats means it was ok to purchase those 3 Romanian AK-47's for $600...
I was so worried thanks for posting that!

OK now I can Mod them...

TOJO

Shamus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 16, 2005, 01:16:38 PM »

I served a P.P.O. that was granted Ex-Parte (only the complaintant appearing before the judge) a few weeks ago that specified that the defendant not be in possesion of any firearms from the time of service.

He is legally required to immediately run all his gun's down to the department that serves his home untill he gets a hearing to detirmine merit before the judge that issued the P.P.O., this can take month's.

By the way, this cool law was passed by a conservative republican administration, so I dont want to hear about the dem's being the root of all evil when it comes to gun control.

shamus

Maverick · « **Reply #12 on:** February 16, 2005, 02:08:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood
***Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.

I'm not really hip to what it takes to get a dishonorable discharge but I thought it had to do with a military code of laws, that might not be the same as a civilians. That being said, it's also a civilians right to bear arms so ....a different set of laws and judgements than the ones I follow can also decide whether or not someone can have the same rights, as a civilian becuase they were discharged, to bear arms.

***Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.

I guess this struck me as surprising until I realized that it would probably be in effect only while the court order was in effect.

***Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

I saw the word misdemeanor and thought that this could mean a lot of things that might not justify taking away someones "right to bear arms".

Mosgood,

A revocation of civil rights including loss of the right to vote is the result of a felony conviction. This includes the possession of firearms.

A dishonorable discharge isn't something handed down for minor infractions. While military regs are somewhat different due to the obvious mission requirements, there are many infractions that meet the felony equivalent or are actual felonies.

Court orders can suspend civil rights and even suspend your freedom. You do have a recourse throught the courts to contest the ruling. Again it should be a felony situation with few exceptions.

The biggest exception to the felony rule is the domestic violence situation. In most states domestic violnece is a misdemeanor depending on severity of the assault, if any. In my experiance it does involve some type of assault including a slap or pushing action. The law regarding DV and weapons was passed as a means to avoid the use of deadly force in a DV situation. It is a mixed situation depending on what your jurisdiction considers DV to be. DV can be claimed by most anyone for anything. Very hard to pin it down.

A lot of DV convictions were the result of a plea bargain and that boomeranged after the weapons and DV laws were introduced. I have mixed feelings regarding the implementation of this type of protection.

Does this help Mosgood?

mosgood · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2005, 02:10:16 PM »

sure good info thanks!

SOB · « **Reply #14 on:** February 16, 2005, 02:35:47 PM »

I don't agree with the dishonorable discharge one, and the misdemeanor domestic one, but the others seem reasonable enough.