Civil disability is surely much different than temporary treatment and release on one's own recognizance. You're extrapolating the consequences of cases that define someone as legally incompetent or clinically insane to someone who has merely been committed. If the psychiatrist deems them fit for release, then what grounds are there for continued restrictions?
You do realize that Franklin never said this, don't you?
How did you come to this conclusion? It seems that the quote is up for debate. While it may not be definite, it is likely that he did indeed say it. If you really want to get into the details:
The quote is taken from, "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania," first published anonymously in London in 1759. The quote is an excerpt from a letter written in 1755 from the Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania.
Benjamin Franklin did publish the edition printed in Philadelphia in 1812, and most likely the original, but denies writing any part of it. The quote, however, may have originated from Franklin and been excerpted for the book by the author.
So it's not about a bunch of people running around in order to effect anarchy. The right to bear arms is so a government of the people can defend itself. Geesh.
How exactly do the people defend themselves from the government? If the government is unfit, how do men exercise their right to establish a new one? How would the colonies have revolted against the King if they outlawed weapons? To quote the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
As for the whole mental health issue, I would have no issue with requiring mental health screening if you had been diagnosed with a mental illness to determine if you are fit to own a firearm. I agree that we must be logical about our decisions and not to be haste and think with emotions. I think Jason said this earlier, but I loved it so much. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.
1) Innocent until proven guilty. 2) Craziness is not a crime. 3) A crazy person is not guilty by dint of being crazy, unless in the course of their illness they commit a crime. 4) It is acceptible to restrict the freedoms of a convicted felon. 5) It is not acceptible to restrict the freedoms of someone who has not been convicted (unless, obviously, they are being held while awaiting or during trial).
I guess this is where the confusion is. The gun laws are full of restrictions for people who have not been convicted of felony. - Drug users - Subjects of restraining orders - Persons found mentally incompetent - Persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Joe, your position is rather inconsistent. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about felony convictions. You are either for limitations on guns or you are not. Your focusing on a "felony conviction" is entirely arbitrary. I prefer focusing on a "compelling state interest. "
Under Joe's scheme, an peaceful accountant who acted on an insider tip can't own a gun. A mentally insane person who has beaten up his wife and keeps violating his restraining order can own a gun.
Involuntary hospitalization often lead to civil disability. The patients are not always ROR'ed.
A determination that a person is fit to be released from a facility doesn't mean that they're fit to wisely wield a firearm. I can't say much more than that I believe that the risk that such a person may be too dangerous to own a firearm trumps whatever right they have to own a firearm, at least for a period of time.
How did you come to this conclusion? It seems that the quote is up for debate. While it may not be definite, it is likely that he did indeed say it. If you really want to get into the details:
Well.. if Franklin, an unabashed patriot denied saying it... I'll go with him. There is no doubt that he published it, but there is equally compelling research that somebody else said it. (I can't remember who, I'll see if I can dig it up.) In any event... for a board so concerned with logical fallacies, if the primary source denies it - and the primary source has been unashamed to say similar things - one ought to give deference to the primary source.
How exactly do the people defend themselves from the government? If the government is unfit, how do men exercise their right to establish a new one? How would the colonies have revolted against the King if they outlawed weapons? To quote the Declaration of Independence:
All good questions - but all questions that are not addressed by the 2nd Amendment. Don't read more into than is there, and than what the founders said it stood for. There is no doubt that the founders intended the militia to defend the federal and state governments.
Well.. if Franklin, an unabashed patriot denied saying it... I'll go with him. There is no doubt that he published it, but there is equally compelling research that somebody else said it. (I can't remember who, I'll see if I can dig it up.) In any event... for a board so concerned with logical fallacies, if the primary source denies it - and the primary source has been unashamed to say similar things - one ought to give deference to the primary source.
Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
My apologies. I used felony because Joe said it (hot potato!).
- Drug users who have been convicted? - A restraining order isn't a conviction, but it is still issued under the constricts of due process. I concede that. - Mental incompetency is an altogether different subject than mental treatment. A person who cannot dress or feed himself is far different than someone who suffered a meltdown, has been treated, and released. - Yes, you are completely correct about misdemeanors (which encompasses domestic violence).
"Compelling state interest," however, is something entirely different. The enemy combatant detention center at Guantanamo Bay may exist due to compelling state interest, but it is still morally and I would contend constitutionally wrong to hold someone without access to legal counsel, appeal, or trial. "Compelling state interest" is dangerous, because it is nebulous. Legal does not always mean correct, nor does it mean constitutional.
Look, we're speciating wildly into some tangential arguments. The original debate voiced by Joe was should former mental patients have a time-based weapons permit restriction. I still say a former patient is entirely different than a former felon, in that you can't punish someone for an illness for which they have been released.
As for Franklin, who the fuck cares who said it? It's still a terrific point. To say it's only valid if attributed to Franklin is a logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
I still say a former patient is entirely different than a former felon, in that you can't punish someone for an illness for which they have been released.
What about someone who is released from an institution yet still suffers from a mental illness. Many people are able to live lives without being institutionalized while maintaining a medicinal regiment. I would argue that they may not be fit to own a firearm.
Joe, your position is rather inconsistent. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about felony convictions. You are either for limitations on guns or you are not. Your focusing on a "felony conviction" is entirely arbitrary. I prefer focusing on a "compelling state interest. "
Under Joe's scheme, an peaceful accountant who acted on an insider tip can't own a gun. A mentally insane person who has beaten up his wife and keeps violating his restraining order can own a gun.
Like I said... think it through.
My apologies. I used felony because Joe said it (hot potato!).
I don't remember saying anything about the Second Amendment restricting felons from owning guns. Va Code § 18.2-308.2 prohibits felons from owning firearms. Most states prohibit felons from owning guns. I was using that as a starting point regarding rational restrictions because most states (and people) agree that felons shouldn't own guns.
You're right though about the results for violent misdemeanors v. white collar felonies. It's not quite fair, but that's the way it is. However, in KY, the mere issuance of a Domestic Violence Order (and they're issued quite often as the standard of proof is only preponderance of the evidence) makes the defendant ineligible to own a firearm, so your hypothetical guy who violates his restraining order (which I'm thinking must be the equivalent of a DVO) would have already lost his guns in KY.
I once had a client who was convicted of being an accomplice to an abortion (He was the "lookout" for a doctor. This was a felony in KY in 1963, when he was convicted). He never knew that he was prohibited from owning a gun until 2003, when a game warden realized that he had been a practicing hunter for years and contacted the FBI and ATF, who both sent him nasty letters. I moved to have his old felony conviction vacated, and, since the conviction was so old, it wasn't violent, and the act was no longer a felony, the judge agreed, vacated the conviction, and the problem was solved.
. There is no doubt that the founders intended the militia to defend the federal and state governments.
This is utterly incorrect. The anti-federalists intended the militia to remain stronger than any government army to ensure that a king or president or any other chief executive couldn't become a tyrant. Arms ownership was the machinery of the carefully constructed mob rule the anti-federalists were pushing for.
WIP: They're releasing dangerously violent patients on purpose now?
WIP: They're releasing dangerously violent patients on purpose now?
I had a professor who was a schizophrenic and was not institutionalized because he took daily medicine. Also, people with multiple personality disorder and depression are able to live in society with medication. I wouldn't equate hospitalization with cured or not cured. I'm sure you have seen A Clockwork Orange.
You're right though about the results for violent misdemeanors v. white collar felonies. It's not quite fair, but that's the way it is.
I always wondered about this. What determines an act a misdemeanor rather than a felony?
The sanction. In KY, a crime that may be punished with a fine of up to $500.00 and incarceration of 12 months in the county jail is a misdemeanor. A crime that can be punished with a fine of $500.00 or more and incarceration of one year or more in the penitentiary is a felony. The legislature determines which crime is which. They're usually pretty common sense distinctions based on severity, such as Harrassing Communications being a misdemeanor and Arson being a felony.
Some distinctions are not so common sense. Theft by Unlawful Taking less than $100.00 dollars was a misdemeanor and TBUT > $100.00 was a felony up until 1987, when the legislature changed the amount to $300.00. There was talk before I moved of changing the amount to $1,000.00. I don't know if they've changed it yet.
I had a professor who was a schizophrenic and was not institutionalized because he took daily medicine. Also, people with multiple personality disorder and depression are able to live in society with medication.
So if he could live fine with daily medication, what is the problem?
HOW THE HELL DID I BECOME THE LIBERAL IN THIS FORUM?
I always wondered about this. What determines an act a misdemeanor rather than a felony?
In Vermont it's anything punishable by over 2 years in prison. So it's fairly arbitrary.
Joe, Currently, any "drug user", whether or not they have been convicted, is prohibited from owning a firearm. It's been an effective tool for ridding the streets of drug dealers without all of the "unpleasantness" of having to develop a case with other drug dealers as witnesses. It's quite simple. If the police see a drug user with a gun (who they have every reason to believe is a dealer), you now have a case where you just need the police officer to testify. To be fair to the feds, they only prosecute these cases when there are compelling circumstances. However, Bush has made gun safety a priority, and these prosecutions are integral part of his Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative.
And of course Freakanomics will tell you that locking up drug users has been the most successful way to reduce crime.... but that's a whole different discussion. ;-)
I always wondered about this. What determines an act a misdemeanor rather than a felony?
In Vermont it's anything punishable by over 2 years in prison. So it's fairly arbitrary.
Wait, wait. Anything punishable? So hypothetically if there is some crime where the sentence ranges from an hour of community service to 10 years in prison, then it's a felony even if I only get sentenced to the community service?
Wait, wait. Anything punishable? So hypothetically if there is some crime where the sentence ranges from an hour of community service to 10 years in prison, then it's a felony even if I only get sentenced to the community service?
You are correct. If the maximum potential punishment is over 2 years - you are a felon. Even if your actual sentence was a $25 fine.
HOW THE HELL DID I BECOME THE LIBERAL IN THIS FORUM?
This is a weird thread... I'm now pushing for restrictions on gun ownership when I started by saying how I live in a state with no gun laws and an incredibly low crime rate.
Wait, wait. Anything punishable? So hypothetically if there is some crime where the sentence ranges from an hour of community service to 10 years in prison, then it's a felony even if I only get sentenced to the community service?
You are correct. If the maximumpotentialpunishment is over 2 years - you are a felon. Even if your actual sentence was a $25 fine.
It's a federal law. It's part of the Gun Control Act as amended in 1998.
I think I might have said something wrong earlier. The Gun Control Act defines a "drug user" as "any individual convicted of a drug offense within the last year, or multiple offenses within the last five years, is considered an "unlawful user of or addicted to drugs", whether or not they are under the influence of a drug at the time of contact." So that should keep Jason happy ;-)
Hehe. Are you sure there isn't a minimum sentence as well? I don't think there's such a thing as a one-hour felony
The vast majority of the felonies in my jurisdiction have no minimums. We also don't have sentencing guidelines. So while it is not common, it is entirely possible that a person could receive a small fine on a felony.
So if he could live fine with daily medication, what is the problem?
OK...by your logic then, what is the problem with selling a gun to a person convicted with a felony that has already served jail time? If they got released from prison, shouldn't they be cleared of EVERYTHING?
The vast majority of the felonies in my jurisdiction have no minimums. We also don't have sentencing guidelines. So while it is not common, it is entirely possible that a person could receive a small fine on a felony.
In KY, judges hardly ever gave fines if they could give time instead. Felonies were worth one year, even if the defendant was lucky enough to have it probated.
One time I had a jury trial for a guy who was charged with DUI 3rd. He was found guilty, and the jury recommended something rarely seen - a full year of community service (in addition to 6 months to serve). We were all aware of the possibility of the community service, but rarely saw it actually recommended.
I had a trial for a guy charged with Arson, Wanton Endangerment 1st, Burglary, Felony Stalking, and a variety of misdemeanors. The jury found him not guilty of all the felonies and a few of the misdemeanors, but gave him twelve months on some of the other misdemeanors, and loaded up on fines so, by the time he was sentenced, he had $5K worth of fines.
Jason: Do you really think felons should have unrestricted access to guns? As I said above, even Va. prohibits felons from buying guns.
Comments
- Drug users
- Subjects of restraining orders
- Persons found mentally incompetent
- Persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Joe, your position is rather inconsistent. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about felony convictions. You are either for limitations on guns or you are not. Your focusing on a "felony conviction" is entirely arbitrary. I prefer focusing on a "compelling state interest. "
Under Joe's scheme, an peaceful accountant who acted on an insider tip can't own a gun. A mentally insane person who has beaten up his wife and keeps violating his restraining order can own a gun.
Like I said... think it through.
A determination that a person is fit to be released from a facility doesn't mean that they're fit to wisely wield a firearm. I can't say much more than that I believe that the risk that such a person may be too dangerous to own a firearm trumps whatever right they have to own a firearm, at least for a period of time.
- Drug users who have been convicted?
- A restraining order isn't a conviction, but it is still issued under the constricts of due process. I concede that.
- Mental incompetency is an altogether different subject than mental treatment. A person who cannot dress or feed himself is far different than someone who suffered a meltdown, has been treated, and released.
- Yes, you are completely correct about misdemeanors (which encompasses domestic violence).
"Compelling state interest," however, is something entirely different. The enemy combatant detention center at Guantanamo Bay may exist due to compelling state interest, but it is still morally and I would contend constitutionally wrong to hold someone without access to legal counsel, appeal, or trial. "Compelling state interest" is dangerous, because it is nebulous. Legal does not always mean correct, nor does it mean constitutional.
Look, we're speciating wildly into some tangential arguments. The original debate voiced by Joe was should former mental patients have a time-based weapons permit restriction. I still say a former patient is entirely different than a former felon, in that you can't punish someone for an illness for which they have been released.
As for Franklin, who the fuck cares who said it? It's still a terrific point. To say it's only valid if attributed to Franklin is a logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
You're right though about the results for violent misdemeanors v. white collar felonies. It's not quite fair, but that's the way it is. However, in KY, the mere issuance of a Domestic Violence Order (and they're issued quite often as the standard of proof is only preponderance of the evidence) makes the defendant ineligible to own a firearm, so your hypothetical guy who violates his restraining order (which I'm thinking must be the equivalent of a DVO) would have already lost his guns in KY.
I once had a client who was convicted of being an accomplice to an abortion (He was the "lookout" for a doctor. This was a felony in KY in 1963, when he was convicted). He never knew that he was prohibited from owning a gun until 2003, when a game warden realized that he had been a practicing hunter for years and contacted the FBI and ATF, who both sent him nasty letters. I moved to have his old felony conviction vacated, and, since the conviction was so old, it wasn't violent, and the act was no longer a felony, the judge agreed, vacated the conviction, and the problem was solved.
WIP: They're releasing dangerously violent patients on purpose now?
Some distinctions are not so common sense. Theft by Unlawful Taking less than $100.00 dollars was a misdemeanor and TBUT > $100.00 was a felony up until 1987, when the legislature changed the amount to $300.00. There was talk before I moved of changing the amount to $1,000.00. I don't know if they've changed it yet.
HOW THE HELL DID I BECOME THE LIBERAL IN THIS FORUM?
Joe,
Currently, any "drug user", whether or not they have been convicted, is prohibited from owning a firearm.
It's been an effective tool for ridding the streets of drug dealers without all of the "unpleasantness" of having to develop a case with other drug dealers as witnesses. It's quite simple. If the police see a drug user with a gun (who they have every reason to believe is a dealer), you now have a case where you just need the police officer to testify.
To be fair to the feds, they only prosecute these cases when there are compelling circumstances. However, Bush has made gun safety a priority, and these prosecutions are integral part of his Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative.
And of course Freakanomics will tell you that locking up drug users has been the most successful way to reduce crime.... but that's a whole different discussion. ;-)
I think I might have said something wrong earlier. The Gun Control Act defines a "drug user" as "any individual convicted of a drug offense within the last year, or multiple offenses within the last five years, is considered an "unlawful user of or addicted to drugs", whether or not they are under the influence of a drug at the time of contact." So that should keep Jason happy ;-)
One time I had a jury trial for a guy who was charged with DUI 3rd. He was found guilty, and the jury recommended something rarely seen - a full year of community service (in addition to 6 months to serve). We were all aware of the possibility of the community service, but rarely saw it actually recommended.
I had a trial for a guy charged with Arson, Wanton Endangerment 1st, Burglary, Felony Stalking, and a variety of misdemeanors. The jury found him not guilty of all the felonies and a few of the misdemeanors, but gave him twelve months on some of the other misdemeanors, and loaded up on fines so, by the time he was sentenced, he had $5K worth of fines.
Jason: Do you really think felons should have unrestricted access to guns? As I said above, even Va. prohibits felons from buying guns.