The right approach to gun control

USMC1986 · Jul 22, 2010

The link below describes a new gun plan for Minneapolis which says that if you are carrying illegally or use an illegal gun in a crime then you will be prosecuted for the maximum penalty. I just hope that police can still make the distinction between the law-abiding citizen vs. the criminals and don't use this as an excuse to "check" everyone that's bears a firearm. (Which they will most likely)

Pound it to them hard so maybe next time they won't commit the same crime is the right approach. Although this still may not deter criminals from illegally obtaining firearms and carrying them but if they get locked up for longer, that's another day they're off the streets.

http://wcco.com/crime/project.exile.minneapolis.2.1819422.html

What do you guys think about this tactic?

madrevar · Jul 23, 2010

From the position of wanting Constitutional Carry, I feel that supporting more vigorous enforcement of "illegal gun" laws or "illegal carry" would be counter-productive. I believe in following the law, but if we are working towards permitless carry, then going after people who carry that way now would set a bad tone, in my opinion. There should be no such thing as "illegal guns or carry", and yea that means felons on the street would be allowed to have and carry guns!

kootsoup · Jul 23, 2010

Do you really think that criminals read or care what the law on the books says? It simply stands to add more restrictions and punishment to gun owners. As well as add more people to the overflowing prison system.

It simply gives government more power.

USMC1986 · Jul 23, 2010

madrevar said:
From the position of wanting Constitutional Carry, I feel that supporting more vigorous enforcement of "illegal gun" laws or "illegal carry" would be counter-productive. I believe in following the law, but if we are working towards permitless carry, then going after people who carry that way now would set a bad tone, in my opinion. There should be no such thing as "illegal guns or carry", and yea that means felons on the street would be allowed to have and carry guns!

Why you believe felons should be allowed to carry or even permitless individuals is beyond me . The whole point for law-abiding citzens to be able to practice their second amendment is to defend the innocent against the very same person who has a gun illegaly and uses it for a crime. Now of course the felons will have them anyways but if we ever become a permitless carry state, restrictions should still be applied so if you are a felon, you can't purchase or carry. Until we are a permitless carry state (if we ever become one) you should feel obligated to follow the laws and not break them.

kootsoup said:
Do you really think that criminals read or care what the law on the books says? It simply stands to add more restrictions and punishment to gun owners. As well as add more people to the overflowing prison system.

It simply gives government more power.

Everyone knows that criminals don't follow the laws but if they do get busted for illegal possession of a firearm and get maximum penalty, that could be one less murder you have to deal with. This isn't adding restrictions to the legal gun owner. It doesn't have anything to do with people who are allowed to carry. It's aimed at the criminals. And let's say hypothetically if they weren't going to start project exile, then it wouldn't give government more power like you say, but now who has the power? Not the lawful gun owner, the criminals...

Dreamer · Jul 23, 2010

Brent Evertz said:
Why you believe felons should be allowed to carry or even permitless individuals is beyond me ..

Not all felonies are for violent crimes. In fact, the VAST MAJORITY of felony-level crimes are NOT for violent crimes. There are a lot of people who are convicted of felonies who never injured another living being physically.

It's a felony to give alcohol to any cow except during an emergency under the Washington State Constitution.

It's a felony in Yellow Pine, New Mexico to keep Christmas decorations on a house past February 17.

It's a felony to breastfeed someone else's baby unless a school teacher is present under the Michigan State Constitution.

It's a felony in MD to record someone's conversation without their consent.

In Pennsylvania, it's a felony to allow a minor to operate a touch-tone phone unsupervised.

In Waterloo County, Illinois, it's a felony to hit a mosquito with a rain gauge.

In Missouri, midwife-assisted homebirth is a felony.

Under Federal law, having a few dozen pot plants growing in your greenhouse is a felony..

So under your logic, midwives in MO shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. People who DARE to record police brutality in MD shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. People with glaucoma or cancer who are using alterative treatements shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

But what's REALLY at issue here isn't really who can and who cannot own a gun. What you REALLY mean to say is that you believe that there is a certain class of people who--through some "offense against the state"--have been rendered unworthy of the option of self-defense.

What you are REALLY saying is that there is a whole class of people who you don't think have the FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT of self-defense when they are victimized by a violent criminal.

What you are really saying is that there are certain legal infractions that you consider grounds for denying a fundamental human right to someone for the rest of their life.

And that, dear friend, is just sick. I feel sorry for you, that you have such contempt for your fellow man that you would deny them fundamental human rights because they stepped on someone's administrative toes...

I'd be interested to hear just who YOU think the "right kinds of people" are, but I think we all already know what THAT answer is...

USMC1986 · Jul 23, 2010

Dreamer said:
Not all felonies are for violent crimes. In fact, the VAST MAJORITY of felony-level crimes are NOT for violent crimes. There are a lot of people who are convicted of felonies who never injured another living being physically.

It's a felony to give alcohol to any cow except during an emergency under the Washington State Constitution.

It's a felony in Yellow Pine, New Mexico to keep Christmas decorations on a house past February 17.

It's a felony to breastfeed someone else's baby unless a school teacher is present under the Michigan State Constitution.

It's a felony in MD to record someone's conversation without their consent.

In Pennsylvania, it's a felony to allow a minor to operate a touch-tone phone unsupervised.

In Waterloo County, Illinois, it's a felony to hit a mosquito with a rain gauge.

In Missouri, midwife-assisted homebirth is a felony.

Under Federal law, having a few dozen pot plants growing in your greenhouse is a felony..

So under your logic, midwives in MO shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. People who DARE to record police brutality in MD shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. People with glaucoma or cancer who are using alterative treatements shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

But what's REALLY at issue here isn't really who can and who cannot own a gun. What you REALLY mean to say is that you believe that there is a certain class of people who--through some "offense against the state"--have been rendered unworthy of the option of self-defense.

What you are REALLY saying is that there is a whole class of people who you don't think have the FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT of self-defense when they are victimized by a violent criminal.

What you are really saying is that there are certain legal infractions that you consider grounds for denying a fundamental human right to someone for the rest of their life.

And that, dear friend, is just sick. I feel sorry for you, that you have such contempt for your fellow man that you would deny them fundamental human rights because they stepped on someone's administrative toes...

I'd be interested to hear just who YOU think the "right kinds of people" are, but I think we all already know what THAT answer is...

Are you kidding me dude? You blew this way out of proportion. I can't sit here all day and type in great detail to please you because I tell you, your not worth my time. Of course I meant the felons that have a violent history. I don't doubt that there are some laws that definitely need revision. For you to think that I was talking about those very laws makes me question YOUR logic.

Oh and tell me how many people do you know that have been convicted of those felonies that you have so generously mentioned above?

Dreamer · Jul 23, 2010

The point is, under Federal Firearms laws, all felonies are equal. When you fill out a 4473, and they run a NICS check, if you have ANY felony convictions--for ANY reason--you are a "prohibited person"...

There has been a trend in the last 20 years to lower the bar" on what constitutes a felony, and the bar is getting lower and lower every day. This is a DANGEROUS legal precedent, and it SPECIFICALLY designed as a form of racist social control, to block out large segments of certain communities from voting, possessing firearms, and holding certain jobs.

The Firearms laws need to be changed. AND we need to return to a legal system where a "felony" was reserved for SERIOUS crimes. Not "victimless" crimes, or non-violent crimes, or administrative crimes.

In the last year there have been about a half-dozen cases in MD where people were charged with felony wiretapping SPECIFICALLY for videoing police misconduct in the performance of their duties. About half of those were thrown out by the DA. Of the three still pending, two will most likely be thrown out. One will most likely go to trial, but if that defendant has a decent lawyer, it should get thrown out too.

And there are THOUSANDS of people in Federal Prisons in the US for Felony drug charges because they were caught with grow rooms...
But that's not the point. The point is there are a LOT of activities that shouldn't even be classified as crimes, let alone Felonies. And THAT needs to be addressed before you start making blanket statements about restricting the rights of ALL felons...

USMC1986 · Jul 23, 2010

Dreamer said:
The point is, under Federal Firearms laws, all felonies are equal. When you fill out a 4473, and they run a NICS check, if you have ANY felony convictions--for ANY reason--you are a "prohibited person"...

There has been a trend in the last 20 years to lower the bar" on what constitutes a felony, and the bar is getting lower and lower every day. This is a DANGEROUS legal precedent, and it SPECIFICALLY designed as a form of racist social control, to block out large segments of certain communities from voting, possessing firearms, and holding certain jobs.

The Firearms laws need to be changed. AND we need to return to a legal system where a "felony" was reserved for SERIOUS crimes. Not "victimless" crimes, or non-violent crimes, or administrative crimes.

In th elast year there have been about a half-dozen cases in MD where people were charged with felony wiretapping SPECIFICALLY for videoing police misconduct in the performance of their duties. About half of those were thrown out by the DA. Of the three still pending, two will most likely be thrown out. One will most likely go to trial, but if that defendant has a decent lawyer, it should get thrown out too.

But that's not the point. The point is there are a LOT of activities that shouldn't even be classified as crimes, let alone Felonies. And THAT needs to be addressed before you start making blanket statements about restricting the rights of ALL felons...

I don't argue with that and as I said before I was talking about criminals that are violent towards the innocent and even other criminals. They don't deserve the human right to self defense by toting around firearms. They gave up that right when they murdered or raped someone or whatever sick crime they've done. There are a great number of felons that shouldn't have a gun and there are probably an equal amount of felons that should still reserve the right to defend themselves. I don't think anyone argues with that.

You shouldn't be so quick to jump to one side and decide to pick apart peoples post on a forum by being so anally critical. Haven't you got anything better to do with your time?

Thos.Jefferson · Jul 23, 2010

From the birth of the nation until 1968 if you paid your debt to society your Rights were restored upon being set free. As it should be. Now if they want to put an Amendment to the Constitution before the People to permanently strip felons of their inherant Rights then that would be more within the context of the Founders' vision.

USMC1986 · Jul 24, 2010

Thos.Jefferson said:
From the birth of the nation until 1968 if you paid your debt to society your Rights were restored upon being set free. As it should be. Now if they want to put an Amendment to the Constitution before the People to permanently strip felons of their inherant Rights then that would be more within the context of the Founders' vision.

Indeed your correct. Unfortunately things just aren't the way they used to be.

DreQo · Jul 24, 2010

Brent Evertz said:
Everyone knows that criminals don't follow the laws but if they do get busted for illegal possession of a firearm and get maximum penalty, that could be one less murder you have to deal with. This isn't adding restrictions to the legal gun owner. It doesn't have anything to do with people who are allowed to carry. It's aimed at the criminals. And let's say hypothetically if they weren't going to start project exile, then it wouldn't give government more power like you say, but now who has the power? Not the lawful gun owner, the criminals...

Sooo, I have a clean criminal record, never touched a drug in my life, generally try to be kind to my fellow man. I've carried a firearm for over 5 years without incident, 8 if you include military service. I'm as non-aggressive as they come...I've never been in a fist fight in my life. I have a marked sense of responsibility for my own safety, and I also tend to feel a responsibility for the people around me.

I just got into the state, and as such haven't acquired my all mighty carry permit yet. I don't have the governments permission at the moment. Are you saying, if I DID carry a handgun anyway, for my own protection and that of my family, that I would be one of those criminals that deserve the most extreme punishment available should I get caught? Do you agree that I should have to spend literally hundreds of dollars just to get my permission slip that says I'm allowed to utilize the most practical tools available to be responsible for my own well being?

Did you know that right here in the city that I grew up in, shooting someone with a BB gun is considered 2nd Degree Assault with a deadly weapon (which is a felony)? Now how many kids goofed off and popped a BB into their buddy's arse growing up? I'm talking even the stupid single pump spring action handguns that can't put a BB through both sides of a pop can at 10 feet. Yeah, I personally know someone that is now a CONVICTED FELON because a BB ricocheted and hit a whiny *** neighbor kid who's parents threw an absolute fit.

Now was he practicing pefect BB gun safety? Eh, probably not. I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is you first agreed that felons shouldn't have guns. Then you changed it up and said violent felons. Well, under that theory, this guy doesn't get to own firearms anymore for the rest of his life because of a freakin stray BB. Are you ok with that?

There is no such thing as a right approach to gun control. There should only be a retreat from it. How about upping the penalty when a deadly weapon is used DURING a crime? Any restriction, any law that dictates when and where someone may possess the practical tools needed to be responsible for themselves should not be considered right, just, necessary, or constitutional. Only with that stance will any ground be had. If you let yourself compromise, you're only giving up ground. In case you haven't noticed, the other side of this argument doesn't compromise.

USMC1986 · Jul 24, 2010

DreQo said:
Sooo, I have a clean criminal record, never touched a drug in my life, generally try to be kind to my fellow man. I've carried a firearm for over 5 years without incident, 8 if you include military service. I'm as non-aggressive as they come...I've never been in a fist fight in my life. I have a marked sense of responsibility for my own safety, and I also tend to feel a responsibility for the people around me.

I just got into the state, and as such haven't acquired my all mighty carry permit yet. I don't have the governments permission at the moment. Are you saying, if I DID carry a handgun anyway, for my own protection and that of my family, that I would be one of those criminals that deserve the most extreme punishment available should I get caught? Do you agree that I should have to spend literally hundreds of dollars just to get my permission slip that says I'm allowed to utilize the most practical tools available to be responsible for my own well being?

Did you know that right here in the city that I grew up in, shooting someone with a BB gun is considered 2nd Degree Assault with a deadly weapon (which is a felony)? Now how many kids goofed off and popped a BB into their buddy's arse growing up? I'm talking even the stupid single pump spring action handguns that can't put a BB through both sides of a pop can at 10 feet. Yeah, I personally know someone that is now a CONVICTED FELON because a BB ricocheted and hit a whiny *** neighbor kid who's parents threw an absolute fit.

Now was he practicing pefect BB gun safety? Eh, probably not. I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is you first agreed that felons shouldn't have guns. Then you changed it up and said violent felons. Well, under that theory, this guy doesn't get to own firearms anymore for the rest of his life because of a freakin stray BB. Are you ok with that?

There is no such thing as a right approach to gun control. There should only be a retreat from it. How about upping the penalty when a deadly weapon is used DURING a crime? Any restriction, any law that dictates when and where someone may possess the practical tools needed to be responsible for themselves should not be considered right, just, necessary, or constitutional. Only with that stance will any ground be had. If you let yourself compromise, you're only giving up ground. In case you haven't noticed, the other side of this argument doesn't compromise.

Is it right that your friend can't own a firearm because of that incident? I don't think so. I have a friend that was dishonorably discharged from the Marines after serving two combat tours to iraq and he can't own a firearm now. But he did break the law and i'm not advocating that he doesn't deserve the right but its not really about me or what I think is it? He knew what the repercussions were and still commited his non-violent crime. When I said felons before I was talking about the ones that have committed violent crimes against the innocent or gang/drug related. I understand there are felons out there that should deserve their right to self defense as I said in a previous post.

As far as whether or not you should get max penalty for breaking the law, that's up to you my friend. If you feel you need to break the law to get your way then you'll have to suffer the consequences may you ever get caught. I personally do think that project exile is good and should be enforced. If you don't agree then thats your opinion and I'll respect it. I understand it is a pain to have to pay all those fees to hold a card that allows you to carry but that's just the way it currently is. I didn't make the rules but i'm going to follow by them. Would I like to see Minnesota a permitless carry state? Yes I would. Will I ever invest my time and money to possibly make that happen? You bet! Until then I'm going to continue to be a law-abiding citizen and will continue to follow state and federal laws.

The thing about all this is you can question law a million different ways on what should be considered right and wrong and any answer you come up with will be one sided. Law is complex and there is no easy answer.

madrevar · Jul 27, 2010

Brent Evertz said:
Why you believe felons should be allowed to carry or even permitless individuals is beyond me . The whole point for law-abiding citzens to be able to practice their second amendment is to defend the innocent against the very same person who has a gun illegaly and uses it for a crime. Now of course the felons will have them anyways but if we ever become a permitless carry state, restrictions should still be applied so if you are a felon, you can't purchase or carry. Until we are a permitless carry state (if we ever become one) you should feel obligated to follow the laws and not break them.

Everyone knows that criminals don't follow the laws but if they do get busted for illegal possession of a firearm and get maximum penalty, that could be one less murder you have to deal with. This isn't adding restrictions to the legal gun owner. It doesn't have anything to do with people who are allowed to carry. It's aimed at the criminals. And let's say hypothetically if they weren't going to start project exile, then it wouldn't give government more power like you say, but now who has the power? Not the lawful gun owner, the criminals...

The first sentence of your post seems to indicate disagreement with permitless indiviuals, but further down you seem to be onboard, please clarify. Your focus seems to be on following the the law as is which I advocate also.
If we become permitless, explain how if carrying, someone will be stopped when they have commited no crime and discovered a felon?

As it is now, it is a crime to carry unless you have a permit, so open carry is enough probably cause to be stopped and checked of permit. With no permit requirement, open carry would no longer provide said probably cause, and defacto felons could carry assuming they were not doin anything else wrong. At any rate, anti-illegal gun/carry sentement isnt much of leap aways from anti-gun/carry sentement in my view, and the type of people proposing the former would actually prefer the latter.

madrevar · Jul 27, 2010

Brent Evertz said:
The thing about all this is you can question law a million different ways on what should be considered right and wrong and any answer you come up with will be one sided. Law is complex and there is no easy answer.

Some laws can be complex, but the right and wrong of most are hardly difficult to ascertain. Any law that restricts the free will of a person except when they violate the rights of others is wrong. If the offender is not actually incarcerated it is that simple, even though it does contradict a great deal of laws in this state and country.

If someone is released on to the street, who is responsible for their self-defense? They are, same as you or me.

USMC1986 · Jul 27, 2010

madrevar said:
The first sentence of your post seems to indicate disagreement with permitless indiviuals, but further down you seem to be onboard, please clarify. Your focus seems to be on following the the law as is which I advocate also.
If we become permitless, explain how if carrying, someone will be stopped when they have commited no crime and discovered a felon?

As it is now, it is a crime to carry unless you have a permit, so open carry is enough probably cause to be stopped and checked of permit. With no permit requirement, open carry would no longer provide said probably cause, and defacto felons could carry assuming they were not doin anything else wrong. At any rate, anti-illegal gun/carry sentement isnt much of leap aways from anti-gun/carry sentement in my view, and the type of people proposing the former would actually prefer the latter.

I'm on board with following the law on the matter of carrying handguns. If a permit is required then you should have a permit. That is why I disagreed with permitless individuals carrying. Although, I would like to see us a permitless carry state but of course until then the permit is required.

They will discover people carrying illegaly because currently we are not a permitless carry state and I was speaking along the lines of project exile. Not if we become a permitless carry state. Even if we were a permitless carry state, there can still be restrictions that say who can't own a firearm. Much like Alaska where you can conceal without a permit but can't purchase one or carry one if your a convicted felon.

The right approach to gun control

USMC1986

Regular Member

madrevar

Newbie

kootsoup

Regular Member

USMC1986

Regular Member

Dreamer

Regular Member

USMC1986

Regular Member

Dreamer

Regular Member

USMC1986

Regular Member

Thos.Jefferson

Regular Member

USMC1986

Regular Member

DreQo

State Researcher

USMC1986

Regular Member

madrevar

Newbie

madrevar

Newbie

USMC1986

Regular Member