background checks.

[welshj]

I read every single post and im still... on the fence in my beliefs in this situation.

Coming from a military mindset and having been squad and team leaders in charge of soldiers...
I have seen a lot of things that firmly made me believe that some of them should never be allowed to ever pick up any weapon ever again.

I try to be an honest, decent person.
I used to be the guy that would pull over and help anybody broke down on the road.
Recent times have changed that in me, and I'm a lot less trusting of people now.

I agree with several points made in this discussion- pro and con.

But, I'll settle my mind on this:
I see it as a case by case situation.

In my first post I mentioned what's fair??
I think if you make a mistake- accidental manslaughter with a car as a young driver... even something I see as really stupid, like accidental discharge of a weapon killing someone. Or my first example as someone who mistakenly feels they're defending someone's life.

A first offense that is not really criminal in intent, but is still worthy of a federal charge that's not followed by a criminal life and long "rap sheet"
I feel that case by case, a learned lesson should not be punished for life. I think perhaps a reasonable limit, sounds fair. Even we, as CHL holders have things that we can be suspended for, temporarily or for life. A probationary term, or a training course, even a certification or recommendation by a psychiatric professional could be reasonable paths to re-instatement.

As concealed carriers- we are held to a higher expected standard of conduct through the responsibility we take on by carrying.
Multiple traffic infractions, getting arrested for dumb acts... or even one single DV charge ends that.

So, as a multiple offender that commits similar acts, or repeated assault charges etc...
I feel they lose that trust. I don't feel they should be re-instated.

"responsible gun owners"
"Upstanding American citizens"

I think that at that point they are none of the above.
People make the conscious decision to do horrible things. No one reasonably sane thinks "hey its ok to mess with kids." "It's all right to beat a defenseless elderly person."
Maybe they should still be incarcerated and not let out as mentioned before?
There are times, and specific things that I wish some of the biblical punishments were still in practice for.

[Liberty]

I am amazed at how many people here do not agree with the 2nd Amendment and are willing to allow the government to violate it as long as it takes away someone else's rights. If the government can define someone else as too dangerous to have firearms, it can define you as too dangerous to have firearms. The framers of our republic knew this, which is why they divested government of authority to infringe upon firearms rights.

[Tweed Ring]

In Ohio, there are a number of restrictions on gun rights, from both the state and federal government. Persons are allowed to post property they own or control.

For the Second Amendment absolutists - I am a First Amendment absolutist. My church is always looking for new and interesting places to meet. Please provide your address and we'll be at your residence next Monday evening at 7:00 P.M. (If you are shy, please feel free to PM the information to me.) Snacks would be nice, but are not required. We shall try to clean up when we are done.

St. Tammany of the Bad Shepherd (we went with Bad Shepherd as it's clearly a catchy title) thanks you so much in advance.

[Liberty]

In Ohio, there are a number of restrictions on gun rights, from both the state and federal government. Persons are allowed to post property they own or control.

For the Second Amendment absolutists - I am a First Amendment absolutist. My church is always looking for new and interesting places to meet. Please provide your address and we'll be at your residence next Monday evening at 7:00 P.M. (If you are shy, please feel free to PM the information to me.) Snacks would be nice, but are not required. We shall try to clean up when we are done.

St. Tammany of the Bad Shepherd (we went with Bad Shepherd as it's clearly a catchy title) thanks you so much in advance.

Didn't that church use to be called the Westboro Baptist Church? Anyhow, here are a couple addresses of Second Amendment absolutists for your next protest:

931 Thomas Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22902
3200 Mount Vernon Memorial Highway, Mount Vernon, VA 22121
1407 Constitution Highway, Montpelier Station, VA 22957

[Tweed Ring]

No, we're an Ohio centric church, and non-affiliated. We don’t protest – we worship. In the immortal words of Sgt. Edgar Millen, RCMP, in the movie "Death Hunt" my parish is located like Millen's headquarters, i.e. "Wherever I'm standing."

I sense a certain cafeteria philosophy: one picks and chooses which parts of our Bill of Rights to which one adheres. Understandable, but frustrating and not comforting to my church. We do want to meet in your residence, and your supporting our First Amendment rights, e.g. our freedom of religion, and our freedom of assembly, etc. requires us to… no… demands us to… meet in private homes of absolutists. You are clearly welcome to attend, but please be advised, when the spirit moves me, I take up multiple collections.

I don’t travel to Virginia as often as I like, but when I do, I visit my Brother-in-Law, who is an attorney for a First Amendment think tank. He was active in the recent Hobby Lobby case; unfortunately, his residence is just too far for my parishioners and for me to commute on a weekly basis for our services. Moreover, I try to never go farther south than Fairfax. I always take the kids to the NRA museum.

I checked my PM’s and didn’t find your address. I would like to advise our parishioners of the location of our next service.

I understand your confusion – I’ll support your Second Amendment absolutism when you elect to support my First Amendment absolutism.

You won’t be the first absolutist who refused my request for my constitutionally guaranteed religious and assembly accommodations. Thank you in advance in this matter of mutual concern.

[welshj]

I am amazed at how many people here do not agree with the 2nd Amendment and are willing to allow the government to violate it as long as it takes away someone else's rights. If the government can define someone else as too dangerous to have firearms, it can define you as too dangerous to have firearms. The framers of our republic knew this, which is why they divested government of authority to infringe upon firearms rights.

They already do... A convicted felon loses many rights.
If I beat my wife with a balloon... and leave a mark or bruise that is visible to the police when they come to my house after she calls...

I get arrested because she has a mark which may or may not even be from the balloon. I lose my right to bear arms through the Lautenberg act.

over a balloon.

My example, and point of argument about it is I, or anyone else should permanently lose my rights for one mistaken act?
That was what I was wondering about and wanting to freely discuss.
I enjoy all reasonable points of discussion.

However, I am not suggesting anything new or that is not in practice already...

[Liberty]

No, we're an Ohio centric church, and non-affiliated. We don’t protest – we worship. In the immortal words of Sgt. Edgar Millen, RCMP, in the movie "Death Hunt" my parish is located like Millen's headquarters, i.e. "Wherever I'm standing."

I sense a certain cafeteria philosophy: one picks and chooses which parts of our Bill of Rights to which one adheres. Understandable, but frustrating and not comforting to my church. We do want to meet in your residence, and your supporting our First Amendment rights, e.g. our freedom of religion, and our freedom of assembly, etc. requires us to… no… demands us to… meet in private homes of absolutists. You are clearly welcome to attend, but please be advised, when the spirit moves me, I take up multiple collections.

I don’t travel to Virginia as often as I like, but when I do, I visit my Brother-in-Law, who is an attorney for a First Amendment think tank. He was active in the recent Hobby Lobby case; unfortunately, his residence is just too far for my parishioners and for me to commute on a weekly basis for our services. Moreover, I try to never go farther south than Fairfax. I always take the kids to the NRA museum.

I checked my PM’s and didn’t find your address. I would like to advise our parishioners of the location of our next service.

I understand your confusion – I’ll support your Second Amendment absolutism when you elect to support my First Amendment absolutism.

You won’t be the first absolutist who refused my request for my constitutionally guaranteed religious and assembly accommodations. Thank you in advance in this matter of mutual concern.

The 1st Amendment only applies to the legislative branch of the federal government. I know that the courts have illegally usurped power to expand the limitations contained therein to state and local governments and businesses through its flawed incorporation doctrine, but the text of the Amendment and how it was understood by the people who ratified it, clearly demonstrates that it only applies to the legislative branch of the federal government. Even though I clearly understand this, I do not go on 1st Amendment advocacy forums and mock everyone who does not agree with me.

The 2nd Amendment's text is very clear. It recognizes the right to have and carry arms as a preexisting human right to self defense and defense from tyranny and provides that it shall not be infringed, period. When it was ratified it was understood as (i.e., the method of constitutional interpretation used in both Heller and McDonald) divesting all governments of authority to infringing upon that preexisting right, but allowed government the authority to protect the right. At the same time, other parts of the Constitution granted governments authority to deprive persons of life, liberty and/or property upon due process of law as a mechanism for dealing with crime. And the people who ratified those portions of the constitution clearly had enough common sense to know that it is not possible to deprive someone of life and liberty without disarming them. During that time period, if someone was released from incarceration, they were not prohibited from possessing or carrying arms.

If you believe that certain classes of free persons' right to possess arms should be violated, you should propose a Constitutional Amendment to change the 2nd Amendment instead of advocating for the government to usurp authority that it was not granted by the Constitution. I will leave you with a quote from the former resident of 3200 Mount Vernon Memorial Highway Mount Vernon, VA 22121 from his farewell address published in the American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

One can be an absolutist but must remember that the Constitution is there to RESTRICT GOVERNMENT and to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

As an individual, on my own property, I should not have to afford anyone else their individual rights, including life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

When in public, one's rights should only be limited at the point they deny the rights of another.

Where the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...", the Second Amendment is not limited to any one branch of government. Infringement by the Executive or Judicial branches (read that as BATFE or SCOTUS) is simply unconstitutional.

[Six Shooter]

One of my family members had two theft-related felonies in their past (over 20 years ago).

Never anything violent, no drugs, not even alcohol...just stupid.

Maybe, in 20 years you could "help" someone similar.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/201 ... arges.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


What's a couple of felonies mean ?

I guess nothing.

[djmac1964]

One of my family members had two theft-related felonies in their past (over 20 years ago).

Never anything violent, no drugs, not even alcohol...just stupid.

Maybe, in 20 years you could "help" someone similar.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/201 ... arges.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


What's a couple of felonies mean ?

I guess nothing.

I fail to see what this has to do with his comment. Every situation is different, and should be handled as such.

[Six Shooter]

I fail to see what this has to do with his comment. Every situation is different, and should be handled as such.

I realize my post seems (more than) a little snarky.

If you kind of "read between the lines", I have a personal issue with people convicted of felony theft.

Especially, when it's a family member, perpetrating it on their family elders.

Hence, the current link I put in my previous post.


White collar crime ?? Not in my book. Not even close.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

...White collar crime ?? Not in my book. Not even close.

BUT, are you saying that if he keeps his nose clean for 20 years, it means nothing?

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Without knowing exactly what "property" the home invaders were after, I can't say if this felon of a homeowner was actively committing any crime other than being a felon in possession, but THAT may have saved his life.

http://www.nbc4i.com/story/28522512/hom ... ng-charges" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Six Shooter]

BUT, are you saying that if he keeps his nose clean for 20 years, it means nothing?

Obviously, "cooler heads" can prevail. I would be the dissenting vote.

Don't get me wrong, I am not faulting you for taking advantage of the law.

It's there for a reason, and it's the law.

Without knowing exactly what "property" the home invaders were after, I can't say if this felon of a homeowner was actively committing any crime other than being a felon in possession, but THAT may have saved his life.

http://www.nbc4i.com/story/28522512/hom ... ng-charges" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is like the definition of irony.

I'm not a betting man, but I would venture to say it involves drugs and money.