What circumstance do you believe warrants a permanent revocation of a person's RKBA?

[Treo]

What circumstance do you believe warrants a permanent revocation of a person's RKBA? I think across the board prohibitions on felons possessing firearms are too broad. Actually, I believe that mere possession of a firearm by anyone shouldn’t be a crime. I would support a permanent revocation of the RKBA for true, capital, crimes such as, murder, rape, any sex crime against a child, treason, basically anything that would have got you hung a hundred years ago. But I also believe that any person found guilty of such needs to die (ASAP) in prison. Having one joint too many? Not so much.

So I’m interested in your opinions on this. I realize that some of you are going to say “Ban them all period.” And you’re welcome to your opinion, as long as you’re ok with me totally ignoring it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

3. "RKBA" is short for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

...as in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[virginia mountainman]

2. ONLY Violent Crimes, should net a lifetime ban...

The rest should not.....

[Euromutt]

4. A reasonable perception that the subject is likely to use the firearm for unlawful purposes

I can agree that a blanket prohibition on anyone with a felony conviction on owning a firearm is overly broad. I'm not especially concerned that some guy who electronically embezzled funds or grew cannabis plants in his backyard is going to shoot someone.

On the other hand, I think that anyone with a conviction for a violent offense, particularly one in which he used a weapon (any weapon) has given adequate evidence that society can't trust him with a firearm.

I also think the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the one that prohibits people with misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence from possessing firearms) was a good piece of legislation in principle (the wording could have been better), because domestic violence tends to occur in escalating patterns and frequently ends in either party (abuser or abused) killing the other. Having never raised more than my voice at an "intimate partner," I have zero sympathy for the people who whine about the Lautenberg Amendment on gun forums. From where I'm standing, if you don't have the impulse control to keep from striking your pair-bonded life partner, you can't be trusted with a gun (and now tell me again how same-sex marriage jeopardizes the "sacred institution" of marriage, asshole).

I'll also add people who have used firearms in the commission of offenses that are not, strictly speaking, counted as "violent." Reckless endangerment comes to mind (i.e. if someone was convicted of discharging a firearm in a time, place and manner likely to result in someone getting hit), and I'd be wiling to extend that to wanton destruction of property (the asshole who committed the "Capitol Hill massacre" in Seattle had been tried for shooting up some sculptures of moose in his hometown of Whitefish, Montana; it would have been a felony because of the dollar amount of the sculptures, but he managed to plead down to a misdemeanor, thereby avoiding confiscation of his guns. He later used the very same guns to murder six people and wound another two).

Plus I'll add that anyone who has been diagnosed with a mental disorder that would allow them to plead diminished capacity (/responsibility/culpability) if charged with an offense, is ipso facto not sufficiently responsible to be entrusted with a firearm. This includes people who have plead diminished capacity in a criminal trial.

All that having been said, though, I do favor the institution of a process whereby an excluded person can attempt to regain the RKBA after a period of time in which they have stayed clean. People with mental disorders can be cured, for example. Also, there is an increasing body of scientific research that testosterone increases one's appetite for taking risks, which explains why males aged 15-25 are disproportionately represented among perpetrators of violent crime. But the same guy might be a lot more mellow in his thirties or forties. But the burden of proof should be upon the excluded person to demonstrate that he has become sufficiently trustworthy to be allowed to possess firearms again.

[Uben]

5. Anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime.....

...should be a minimum requirement. Add to that, any rapists, anyone guilty of robbery, anyone guilty of a violent crime, and anyone convicted of taking part in gang activity.

It is a right that can and will be revoked if you do not follow the law. I am a strong advocate of RKBA, and also a strong advocate of taking that right away from criminals.

[Statistical]

6. I think I am going to be too radical but here we go...

First I would exclude any non-violent, no firearm offender from ANY restriction on RKBA once they serve their probation.

So only violent & firearms related felony offenders would face the "possibility" of losing RKBA. I include firearm offenses and not limit it only to violent offenses because technically speaking brandishing, reckless endangerment, unlawfully firing within city limits, and other firearm offenses are not violent felonies. I think just as limiting RKBA to all felonies is overly broad, limiting it to only violent felonies is overly narrow.

Now for violent & firearm felonies the convicted would lose RKBA for entire sentence and probation period. 10 years after the sentence is completed the law should be required to give them a hearing to gain their rights back.

I don't believe in permanently excluding people as a punishment only as a safety concern. Someone who for example robbed a 7/11 when they were 17, spent 5 years in prison, then 2 more years or probation, then waited 10 years and is now 34 and has had no trouble with the law is likely not a habitual offender. Now the courts aren't required to give them their firearms back but they would be required to give them the hearing.

Currently in many states there is no method for felons to gain their firearm rights back which I think is another situation that is overly broad. Most felons do re-offend and we should keep firearms from them but some don't and after a decade the likelihood of re-offending is not much higher than the general public hence they no longer a higher risk class.

[jeepnstein]

7. Felony conviction.

The felon can always go back later and petition the court to expunge the record after an appropriate period of time. I know a guy who's doing that right now over a bad check that he wrote twenty some years ago.

The whole argument about whether we have too many felonies on the books is a different matter.

[TheWraith]

8. I think that that should be discretionary, left up to judges.

I think that most of the restrictions we have now are reasonable with the exception of non-violent, non-gun, non-gang felony offenses. However as I've said before, we should be trying to reintegrate people into society after they've paid their debt, and that means restoring things like the right to vote and--when a judge feels that there's no danger of that weapon being used in an illegal manner--the right to own a gun. For some people that might be five or ten years after they get out, but the system needs to be in place to accomodate the possibility.

[iverglas]

9. how can an INALIENABLE RIGHT be "revoked"???

I keep waiting for someone to explain it to me ...

But hey, still love them crocodile tears about that rape stuff.

Yes, we women know that gun militants love us, they really love us.

:rofl:

[Statistical]

10. Rights are never revoked however governments can suppress the exercising of those rights by force.

The Jews in Nazi Germany still had a right to life & liberty the fascist regime of Germany simply suppressed them.
The right didn't go away. The rights preexisted Nazi Germany and outlived it and rely on no such government for their existence.

The right we enjoy today are not created or granted by the Constitution but rather protected by the Constitution. The founders being far from wide eyed idealists realized the governments often do suppress the exercising of rights. They wrote the bill of rights to appease those who were concerned of a new tyrannical govt would replace the old tyrannical govt and also to make it MORE DIFFICULT (but obviously not impossible) for the government to suppress rights.

The Constitution & Bill of Rights aren't magical. If tomorrow the United States formed the Church of American and made all other forms of religion illegal the Constitution by itself can't stop that. The suppression would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the Judiciary and military having taken an oath to defend the Constitution have an obligation to act but if they don't it would happen.

The Bill of Rights serves two purposes.

First it makes it difficult for the government to suppress rights without being tyrannical and risking backlash from the populace. Second it indirectly protects liberties by codifying the rights so that future generations would know and understand them thus preventing tyranny from getting hold by electing Representatives who share their same values. This second aspect has died a little as it required an informed populace.

So what is the defining line between lawful suppression and unlawful suppression of rights (including RKBA)? "strict scrutiny" is the tool used to ensure the government is not prohibited from serving a compelling government interest (such as public safety). The courts have long held that rights are not absolute and can be restricted. To avoid them being restricted to the point of uselessness a 3 prong test has emerged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

1) Compelling government interest
2) Narrowly tailored
3) Least Restrictive Means

The antis always look to prong number 1. no doubt public safety is a compelling government interest. However they fail to even consider points two and three.

Banning all guns WOULD serve a compelling government interest however it is not the least restrictive method to accomplish that interest and it certainly is not narrowly tailored.

Suppressing gun rights for life without appeal or exception is not the least restrictive method, instead something like 10 year period followed by appeal works and is less restrictive and accomplishes the compelling interest.

Suppressing all felons rights IMHO is not narrowly tailored enough. Many felons are no more dangerous than those not convicted of a felony. The compelling interest can be achieved by suppressing the rights of violent felons a much narrower definition.


<On edit: added the word exercise as in "suppress the exercise of those rights" to clarify. Thanks iverglas. Fixed million spelling errors and clarified some points>

[iverglas]

11. yes, that was all fascinating

I was responding to the question in the opening post. Admittedly, I was assuming that the poster would proclaim, as do many here, that toting a gun around is one of those "inalienable rights".

I trust you noticed my comments in another thread yesterday concerning blanket denials of the exercise of certain rights.

[Treo]

12. The Poster Proclaims

Admittedly, I was assuming that the poster would proclaim, as do many here, that toting a gun around is one of those "inalienable rights".

And he does, however the constitution does provide that under certain circumstances a person may be deprived of life liberty or property by due process of law. I've stated before that in the case of true capital crimes I'd be OK W/ a person losing their RKBA. However, in such cases(if it were up to me) the wouldn't need their RKBA because they'd spend the rest of their life in prison

EDIT: Spelling

[iverglas]

14. and if you had the first clue about due process

you would know that denying the exercise of an "inalienable" right by operation of a statute creating an overbroad class doesn't cut it.


true capital crimes

What utter burble.

A capital crime is a crime for which capital punishment may be imposed.

These things really don't drop like lawn darts from the sky either. A "true" capital crime is one for which, by statute, in some polity, capital punishment may be imposed. Is all.

Of course, modern civilized societies acknowledge that there is no crime for which capital punishment may legitimately be imposed. (Which is why modern, civilized societies like France and Canada will not extradite accused persons to US states on charges for which a death sentence might result, without obtaining assurances from prosecutors that it will not be sought.) Because there is no due process that is adequate for the purpose. Not to mention the plain fact that the state killing people is just primitive and barbaric.

So you can take your "rape" crying and shed the crocodile tears somewhere where someone will admire them.


I've stated before that in the case of true capital crimes I'd be OK W/ a person losing their RKBA. However, in such cases(if it were up to me) the wouldn't need their RKBA because they'd spend the rest of their life in prison

Fortunately, these things are sometimes actually up to people who have a clue and use their brain in conjunction with their mouths when they talk about them.

Plainly, you are proposing a denial of the exercise of rights as punishment, and I must inform you that such blanket punishments face a stringent due process test. Courts will bow to legislative authority on matters of public policy only where the line is difficult to draw.

Prohibitions on the exercise of rights may be imposed as punishment (e.g. in the case of the liberty of individuals who are incarcerated). To meet the due process test, the punishment must be tailored to both offence and offender, as a general rule.

I know that bloody-minded, simple-minded individuals have a hard time getting their minds around the concept of the public interest, and I know you aren't even going to try.

But there are public interest reasons for limiting access to firearms, and particularly for prohibiting access to firearms by certain individuals. An order prohibiting firearms possession made by the sentencing judge at the time of sentencing, in cases where such an order appears to be consistent with sentencing principles (one of which is protection of the public) fills that bill quite neatly, for individuals actually convicted of crimes.

[Treo]

15. Due process

Plainly, you are proposing a denial of the exercise of rights as punishment, and I must inform you that such blanket punishments face a stringent due process test. Courts will bow to legislative authority on matters of public policy only where the line is difficult to draw.

Actually I'm proposing that if you are convicted of a capital crime they kill you. In which case you won't need your RKBA and I won't have to pay to support your ass in prison.
I'm begining to think you're just lookng for an excuse to gun bash

[iverglas]

16. you aren't amusing; you're tedious

Actually I'm proposing that if you are convicted of a capital crime they kill you.

Uh huh.

And WHAT I SAID was: if the laws of a jurisdiction provide that the death penalty may be imposed for an offence, it is then a "capital crime".

If not, not.

Your yammering about "true capital crimes", which appear to be no more than what you would personally like to see people killed for, is just evidence of the classical right-wing mindset you so plainly revel in possessing. Oh, and misogynist mindset. Crying "rape" in this context is just ignorant patriarchal bullshit.

I'm begining to think you're just lookng for an excuse to gun bash

If you'd stopped after the first four words, my heart would have leapt in a flare of optimism.

Funny how I AM the person here saying that a blanket statutory ban on firearms possession by persons convicted of crimes would be illegitimate.

Not how we do it up here in Canada, I assure you. A criminal conviction is not a bar to firearms possession unless the sentence included a firearms prohibition order. And you get to vote while you're incarcerated. Rights and freedoms. Gotta love 'em, eh?

[Treo]

17. If I'm tedious you're certainly welcom e to put me on ignore NT

[iverglas]

18. I don't put anyone on ignore -- I'm not a poseuse

unlike all the poseurs here who come only to pollute an already problematic atmosphere (there's a whole lotta stuff at this site that wouldn't pass for progressive anywhere I've ever lived) with ignorant right-wing gun militancy while pretending they're here for "discussion".

Under an old régime I could name they might have been shamed for their uncivil and anti-democratic behaviour.

These days, I just have more to mock. Anybody who wants to look like a moron by making themself unable to read the mockery is welcome to it.

[Treo]

19. I Never Claimed To Be A Democrat

I assume you aren't either I'm libertarian and I've never tried to hide that. Beyond that I'm progressive as Hell. I want the government out of my life I want all US troops back on American soil (preferably securing our borders)and all foreign troops (including the Federales and what ever passes for an army in Canada out. Flat 10% tax rate across the board for every one and the immediate and of the war on (some) drugs

These days, I just have more to mock
IOW you're only here to pollute an already problematic atmosphere?

[iverglas]

21. like I said

There is nothing remotely progressive about anything you espouse. Pig-ignorant far right-wing shit, 100% pure.

[Statistical]

13. Depends on the definition "inalienable".

Depends on the definition "inalienable".

I did notice your post of the illegitimacy of blanket denials. It is likely one of the few things we agree upon. :)

Inalienable?
I believe absolutely that the right to keep and bear arms exists and it existed before the Constitution and does not rely on the Constitution for its existence (as do other rights). I also believe even if the government suppressed the exercising of that right, the right would still exist. Governments can be fascists and totalitarian and horribly suppress the rights of their people but the right doesn't go away. Did the right to a free speech cease to exist because the Soviet Union supressed the excercising of that right? No, or at least I don't think so. All people have that right, the govt simply used force to prevent its expresion. The right didn't go away, it was always there, the people simply suffered horribly consequences when they exercised it.

Does this belief make rights inalienable? Like I said it depends on the definition. I don't like charged words like that because it confuses the more important point that the right exists even when the expression of that right has been suppressed.

]b]The founders believed and I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is not something the govt can lawfully take from me. They can take it by force (force of law, forced incarceration, military/police force) but that makes them a tyrannical government and they in doing so will have lost legitimacy of rule. This was essentially the rational for rebellion from King George. It wasn't that King George couldn't supress rights (he obviously did) it was that in doing so he lost the legitimacy to rule. Pretty radical concepts especially for the time.

If the govt completely suppresses the RKBA will the people rebel against that tyranny today? Maybe not. Maybe we have gotten to soft and comfortable. Maybe we have lost the righteous anger the founding fathers felt at having their rights unlawfully suppressed. Regardless if we rebel or not the right exists and the govt took it unlawfully.

Of course I accept reality is complex and I don't believe any right (including right to keep and bear arms) is absolute. While in theory it maybe and it makes for nice philosophical discussions but it is impossible in reality. "Strict Scrutiny" is the tool a lawful government uses to balance the right to be encumbered by as few restrictions as possible against the damage that will have on society as a whole.

[gorfle]

24. Easily.

how can an INALIENABLE RIGHT be "revoked"???

The same way your right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be revoked if you are put in jail for a crime.

[iverglas]

27. oh right

The same way your right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be revoked if you are put in jail for a crime.

I dunno what right to "the pursuit of happiness" there might be, but I assure you -- and really, you can look this up -- your right to liberty is NOT REVOKED if you are put in jail.

If it were, you would never have to be released. Duh.

Limits are placed on your exercise of your right to liberty, if you are convicted of a crime and sentenced to incarceration.

You do NOT "lose" your right to liberty. Really. Really. You do not.

It's INHERENT, remember? As long as you're a live human being, you got it.

[proteus_lives]

20. Murder, Rape, Pedophilia.

Long-time gang member, repeated assault charges, becoming mentally unstable. Can't think of anything else.

[slackmaster]

22. Being Canadian

:nuke:

[Treo]

23. That's kind of a given NT

[OttavaKarhu]

25. Under what conditions would you revoke the First Amendment?

[LAGC]

26. I think anyone, once released from prison & probation/parole should be restored all their rights.

If a crime is too heinous to warrant it, they shouldn't ever be released from prison or removed from some sort of life-time supervision.