NationStates Jolt Archive

OK we (me and my fellow U.S.ers) have the right to keep and bare arms. I support that in principle, within limits of compelling state interest and mindful of the rights we had currently in the days not be infringed" were penned.

So first of all let me propose that compelling state interest allows us to forbid firearms to people of the following classes:

1) anyone currently serving a felony or violent crime conviction, including parole and probation.

2) anyone who has been legally adjudicated to be a habitual felon, or any similar term of judgement.

3) anyone who is under a current mental health diagnosis for a condition that could render them a danger to themselves and others.

In certain circumstances, &/or within certain limits, compelling state interest could allow us to place firearm ownership qualifications &/or restrictions on people of the following classes:

4) anyone out on bail of having been indited for a violent crime or felony.

5) anyone who has ever been under a mental health diagnosis for a chronic condition that could render them a danger to themselves and others and that has a significant risk of recurence.

6) anyone without full U.S. citizenship.

. . .

More thoughts to come, but I would like to hear feedback on these

Those restrictions sound fair and reasonable to me.

OK we (me and my fellow U.S.ers) have the right to keep and bare arms. I support that in principle, within limits of compelling state interest and mindful of the rights we had currently in the days not be infringed" were penned.

So first of all let me propose that compelling state interest allows us to forbid firearms to people of the following classes:

1) anyone currently serving a felony or violent crime conviction, including parole and probation.

2) anyone who has been legally adjudicated to be a habitual felon, or any similar term of judgement.

3) anyone who is under a current mental health diagnosis for a condition that could render them a danger to themselves and others.

In certain circumstances, &/or within certain limits, compelling state interest could allow us to place firearm ownership qualifications &/or restrictions on people of the following classes:

4) anyone out on bail of having been indited for a violent crime or felony.

5) anyone who has ever been under a mental health diagnosis for a chronic condition that could render them a danger to themselves and others and that has a significant risk of recurence.

6) anyone without full U.S. citizenship.

. . .

More thoughts to come, but I would like to hear feedback on these

I see 6 as unnecessary, and would like to note that "indited" is actually spelled "indicted" though it is pronounced as if it were the former.

OK we (me and my fellow U.S.ers) have the right to keep and bare arms.

Yeah, long sleave shirts aren't mandatory *rimshot*

Lame I know :p

I think there should be an exam to be alowed to own a gun. Guns are dangerous to operate and so you should prove to the government you are capable of doing this in a safe way.

1) anyone currently serving a felony or violent crime conviction, including parole and probation.

2) anyone who has been legally adjudicated to be a habitual felon, or any similar term of judgement.

3) anyone who is under a current mental health diagnosis for a condition that could render them a danger to themselves and others.

In certain circumstances, &/or within certain limits, compelling state interest could allow us to place firearm ownership qualifications &/or restrictions on people of the following classes:

4) anyone out on bail of having been indited for a violent crime or felony.

5) anyone who has ever been under a mental health diagnosis for a chronic condition that could render them a danger to themselves and others and that has a significant risk of recurence.

6) anyone without full U.S. citizenship.



Add these:

7) Anyone who is currently under a restraining order.
8) Anyone who owes back taxes to the IRS.
9) Anyone who is behind on child support.

And you've got the gun restriction laws in Texas.

Thank you.

So regarding the second group: what for of restrictions to you think would be appropriate and constitutional? I suggest the following:

a) for those on bail for domestic violence, all guns in their house may be taken until after trial and if applicable until after the sentence has been fulfilled.

b) for those on bail for felonies and violent crimes the grand jury would be additionally asked to rule on firearm possession, and may determine that all weapons in their control may be taken until after trial and if applicable until after the sentence has been fulfilled.

c) a civil court or review board with jurisdiction over mental health commitments may allow or deny a person with a previous chronic dangerous mental health condition to possess firearms, with or without additional restrictions such as scheduled check-ups and proof of the use of any preventative medications deemed needed to prevent recurence.

d) any non-citizen the purpose of whose presence does not require the use of firearms (such as the bodyguard of a foreign national) must have a clean criminal record in all nations, no associations with convicted criminals or suspected terrorists, and a compelling reason (living in a dangerous neighbourhgood would count) to possess a firearm.

And in my initial post I neglected one group:

7) minors without consent of parents who are willing to take legal responsibility for the safety of the minors and others.

e) minors may be required to undergo training and may be limited to possessing firearms under the direct oversight of their parents or other adults with parental consent who are willing to share legal responsibility.

Add these:

7) Anyone who is currently under a restraining order.
8) Anyone who owes back taxes to the IRS.
9) Anyone who is behind on child support.

And you've got the gun restriction laws in Texas.

7) fuck that. As far as I am concerned, anyone should be able to get a restraining order, within reason, against anyone, so that would be giving anyone the right to deny anyone else a constitutional right.

"Within reason" means you can keep a person away from your house, or away from where you work if they do not work or do business there, and similar places, and keep them from approaching you into your "personal space", but you can't create a zone that keeps them from eating in the same restaraunt, etc. And you can't get an RO against your local police either. To get a more restrictive order should take a higher burden of evidence of a threat. The idea is that you have a right to keep someone from knocking on your door, and where you work is also (usually) not a public place either, and "getting in your face" is a form of (minor) assault... but to actually restrict a person's rights (like "you can't come into the bar because that puts you inside of 50 feet") should require strong evidence of a compelling state interest, such as keeping a person safe.

But unless there is an indictment (not just an inditement! ;)) no one's Constitutional rights can be legally infringed.

7) I am tempted to say "fuck that" too, but I can see that not paying taxes could be viewed as a willful rejection of citizenship. However, where does it end? Should those who owe back taxes be disallowed to vote? Should those who have misfiled and underpaid be denied the right to free speach? trial by jury with councel? or to be safe from cruel and unusual punishment?

Now you've gotten me in trouble. I may lose the right wing voters here, but now I am considering this: those people who denounce the authority of the IRS over them in conjunction with not paying taxes may be considered to be non-citizens, and denied the right to keep and bare arms. Ten or more years of delinquency could be considered de facto renunciation.

More potentially lost votes here, probably from the left: I believe that all people should be protected, while in the U.S.A., by the Constitution, with the exception of the Second and Fourth Amendments. No state can be secure if it allows foreign nationals to be armed without restriction and to be free from inspection within its borders.

8) I will say "fuck that" here, although emotion would have me say that those who will not support their kids should have no rights at all. But then, why not make all people with unpaid debts into second class citizens?

Well... maybe just court-ordered payments? Or maybe even just family-court-ordered payments? And maybe just the Second Amendment?

I know that hunting and fishing and driving liscences, car titles, tags, etc. have been restricted. But none of these are enshrined in the Constitution.

I see 6 as unnecessary, and would like to note that "indited" is actually spelled "indicted" though it is pronounced as if it were the former.

(6) helps keep enemy armies from coming over on student visas, and dang! I looked up the spelling and didn't bother to read the definition. By which I mean... yeah... uhm... I meant "indited" ... as in "written down" ... yeah ... yeah ... that's the ticket! :D

I think there should be an exam to be alowed to own a gun. Guns are dangerous to operate and so you should prove to the government you are capable of doing this in a safe way.

This is a reasonable position but to do so legally would require a constitutional amendment, whcih I have no attention in including in my campaign platform. But thank you for your interest. :)

(6) helps keep enemy armies from coming over on student visas, and dang! I looked up the spelling and didn't bother to read the definition. By which I mean... yeah... uhm... I meant "indited" ... as in "written down" ... yeah ... yeah ... that's the ticket! :D

1. Then wouldn't (6) be more appropriately phrased to say "citizens, denizens, members, affiliates, or associates of a foreign nation, organization, or group known to be hostile to the United States" instead of just saying plain old "non-citizens"?

2. Don't worry about it. I'm just a spelling nazi sometimes. ;)

1. Then wouldn't (6) be more appropriately phrased to say "citizens, denizens, members, affiliates, or associates of a foreign nation, organization, or group known to be hostile to the United States" instead of just saying plain old "non-citizens"?

2. Don't worry about it. I'm just a spelling nazi sometimes. ;)

1. it's inneeded, as "non-citizens" covers all that I propose covering, while, for example, "affiliates, or associates of a ... hostile..." could be used to unconstitutionally include imigrees who have attained citzenship.

2. GREAT! :D I need a spelling-and-grammer nazi on my campaign team! :D

Additionally, it is my intent to cover ALL who have not sworn citizenship to the U.S.A., not just those from enemy states. Heck, the Saudis are our "friends", right? And Egypt and Pakistan and Afghanistan and coming soon": Iraq... And of course the French and the British... etc... and let's not forget a golden oldy from a couple decades back... Columbians, Peruvians, Cubans... etc...

I'm not saying non-citizens should never have arms, just that they need to prove themselves crime-free and tell us why they need to be armed in someone else's country. Like I said "we live in a bad part of town" would be good enough, if you don't have a criminal record, a brother-in-law in Hammas, etc...

Well the constitution doesn't technically apply to any non-U.S. citizen, correct me if I'm wrong.

In general, I feel that the second amendment says what it says, no backing down from it. My problem is with liberals here in the US want to outright ban all guns. Not only does it violate the constitution but it also doesn't make good sense. Cause if you think about it, criminals break laws, whats going to stop them from breaking a ban on guns? The ones that follow the law will be the ones that are in danger from a law like this. You've got criminals running around with guns and people can't protect themselves with equal force.

Did you know it's illegal for people with restraining orders to carry a weapon?
I have a friend who put a restraining order on someone just because they
were prank calling her. Now for the next five years this person can't hunt,
because it's against the law.

Well the constitution doesn't technically apply to any non-U.S. citizen, correct me if I'm wrong.

In general, I feel that the second amendment says what it says, no backing down from it. My problem is with liberals here in the US want to outright ban all guns. Not only does it violate the constitution but it also doesn't make good sense. Cause if you think about it, criminals break laws, whats going to stop them from breaking a ban on guns? The ones that follow the law will be the ones that are in danger from a law like this. You've got criminals running around with guns and people can't protect themselves with equal force.

1) this is true, however, the current administration has been commiting some pretty bad human rights abuses by using the policy that non-citizens have no rights under the Constitution. The only ones I see as involving a compelling state interest of denying to non-citizens are the Second and the Fourth. Furthermore, I feel that the other parts of the Bill of Rights describe basic human rights, which we should not deny to anyone.

2-a) I love to break it to you but neither all nor even most liberals want to outright ban all guns. Turn off the talk radio and see the world for yourself, not through some hysterical pundit's eyes.

2-b) this thread has been created to get feedback for my presidential campaign platform. It has nothing to do with real or imagined laws you might have been told somebody wants to pass. Thank you. :)

Did you know it's illegal for people with restraining orders to carry a weapon?
I have a friend who put a restraining order on someone just because they
were prank calling her. Now for the next five years this person can't hunt,
because it's against the law.

Yes, I am aware that this is the case in some states. However it may be unconstitutional. Now, has he been convicted of harrassment, or anything else? Or has he just got an order telling him not to call or approach her? If the latter, this is illegal, under my interpretation of constitutional law.

P.S.: your friend is a dick.

1. it's inneeded, as "non-citizens" covers all that I propose covering, while, for example, "affiliates, or associates of a ... hostile..." could be used to unconstitutionally include imigrees who have attained citzenship.

Fair enough.

2. GREAT! :D I need a spelling-and-grammer nazi on my campaign team! :D

All I expect in return is a job in your administration, a 50,000 dollar a year salary with benefits and an annual cost of living increase, as well as a really hot intern. Sound good?

Fair enough.



All I expect in return is a job in your administration, a 50,000 dollar a year salary with benefits and an annual cost of living increase, as well as a really hot intern. Sound good?

No, since I would have no control over government saleries, and do not know yet what is involved in the intern selection process. In addition I would have a zero-tolerence sexual harrassment and fraternization policy. But an administration job is certainly on the table.

You should also know that my party is currently called "the Unelectables". We represent the 99% of Americans who could never be elected.

"I am not an eccentric billionaire. I am not a lifetime politician or civil servant. I am the rest of us!"

No, since I would have no control over government saleries, and do not know yet what is involved in the intern selection process. In addition I would have a zero-tolerence sexual harrassment and fraternization policy. But an administration job is certainly on the table.

Meh. I find those terms quite acceptable.

Also, it's "salaries" and not "saleries." ;)

(Little psychology tip, kids. Include a totally unacceptable item in your initial request and you're more likely to get the other, more reasonable items.)

You should also know that my party is currently called "the Unelectables". We represent the 99% of Americans who could never be elected.

"I am not an eccentric billionaire. I am not a lifetime politician or civil servant. I am the rest of us!"

I see. You are familiar with your opposition party, yes? They're called "The Politicians." They represent the 1% of Americans who should never have been allowed to hold public office, but were anyway.

Well the constitution doesn't technically apply to any non-U.S. citizen, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll correct you. When visiting a foreign country, visitors have to respect all rights and laws of visiting countries, in return they are granted the same rights and liberties. Unless a specific law restrict those rights for non-citizens, that is.

Or else, any immigrant arrested could be shot on sight, no questions asked. Hell, I could be beaten to a pulp when I visit relatives in the Us and would have no legal recourses. Also, don't expect me to pay any driving tickets, taxes, and so on.

So, in essence, unless you specify, non-citizen can get a hold of fireamrs legally while in the US.

OK we (me and my fellow U.S.ers) have the right to keep and bare arms. I support that in principle, within limits of compelling state interest and mindful of the rights we had currently in the days not be infringed" were penned.

So first of all let me propose that compelling state interest allows us to forbid firearms to people of the following classes:

1) anyone currently serving a felony or violent crime conviction, including parole and probation.

2) anyone who has been legally adjudicated to be a habitual felon, or any similar term of judgement.

3) anyone who is under a current mental health diagnosis for a condition that could render them a danger to themselves and others.

In certain circumstances, &/or within certain limits, compelling state interest could allow us to place firearm ownership qualifications &/or restrictions on people of the following classes:

4) anyone out on bail of having been indited for a violent crime or felony.

5) anyone who has ever been under a mental health diagnosis for a chronic condition that could render them a danger to themselves and others and that has a significant risk of recurence.

6) anyone without full U.S. citizenship.

. . .

More thoughts to come, but I would like to hear feedback on these


Most here know I'm a strong Pro-gun advocate. Except for 6, most of those are already on the books and I support them. That's why I usually use the phrase law-abiding citizen (LAC)when it comes to firearm rights.

So far I might vote for you. What's your stance on ownership of different classes of guns?

Most here know I'm a strong Pro-gun advocate. Except for 6, most of those are already on the books and I support them. That's why I usually use the phrase law-abiding citizen (LAC)when it comes to firearm rights.

So far I might vote for you. What's your stance on ownership of different classes of guns?

I believe that the citizens of the U.S.A. have to constitutional rights to possess any form of firearm available for use by the powers that directly govern us, which is to say, all internal police organizations, including the F.B.I., A.T.F., etc. If they have it, we have the right to have it.

This is all we should need, unless martial law is declared, in which case all bets, and rights, are off anyway. But there is the rub. The Second Amendment was written on the backdrop of the contemplation of a government that might one day turn to tyranny, and of our right to overthrow such a government. But then again, there has to be a line, such as, say, nukes. Even if the government needs overthrowing, should private citizen freedom-fighters use nukes?

So there should certainly be a limit. But in the interest of the people having the power to defend against the government's full power, the law abiding, if you will, should be able to possess military grade weaponry. However, for the compelling state interest of public safety, such weapons should be registered. If you're afraid that a tyranical U.S. government will use such a list to find its enemies, that would be rather naieve with regards to what they could do without such a registration.

OK we (me and my fellow U.S.ers) have the right to keep and bare arms.

Indeed. We should all keep our arms. We should retain the right to bare arms, as well. I pretty much have bare arms all summer long.

;)

Indeed. We should all keep our arms. We should retain the right to bare arms, as well. I pretty much have bare arms all summer long.

;)

That one is rapidly moving from "fell off my high-chair" old to "fell off my dinosaur" old! ;)

That one is rapidly moving from "fell off my high-chair" old to "fell off my dinosaur" old! ;)
You know, you COULD edit the mistake out...

You know, you COULD edit the mistake out...

It was a set-up, not a mistake. It was an unintended set-up, but the wording was proper.

I think there should be an exam to be alowed to own a gun. Guns are dangerous to operate and so you should prove to the government you are capable of doing this in a safe way.
Rules of operation:
1.) Don't point at anyone you don't mean to shoot.
2.) Make sure safety is on until you mean to shoot.
3.) Before cleaning, eject magazie and clear slide.

Damn, that was hard.

Yes, I am aware that this is the case in some states. However it may be unconstitutional. Now, has he been convicted of harrassment, or anything else? Or has he just got an order telling him not to call or approach her? If the latter, this is illegal, under my interpretation of constitutional law.
P.S.: your friend is a dick.

That's out right ridiculous. Loosing your gun priviledges because of prank calling someone. Think about it; the whole cast of Crank Yankers wouldn't
be allowed to buy a handgun. I think that people use that restraining order
law for some stupid reasons - learn to take a joke people.

This is a reasonable position but to do so legally would require a constitutional amendment, whcih I have no attention in including in my campaign platform. But thank you for your interest. :)

Not necessarily.

You could allow simple weapons across the board, but anything more complicated would require a test, with licensing graded for different types of weapons (just like different types of cars). After all, the founding fathers didn't exactly have AKs and rocket launchers.

Originally Posted by Hobabwe
I think there should be an exam to be alowed to own a gun. Guns are dangerous to operate and so you should prove to the government you are capable of doing this in a safe way.

You have to apply for training to be able to carry a gun in Ohio, most
people will carry a gun without that permit (I've always carried a gun),
because eventually it'll change and they'll just take it away from you.

You have to apply for training to be able to carry a gun in Ohio, most
people will carry a gun without that permit (I've always carried a gun),
because eventually it'll change and they'll just take it away from you.

Or it will eventually change and you wont have any need for a permit any longer, either way you are the one that comes out ahead it seems lol. Just think of all those mad people that wasted 50-100+ $ on a useless piece of paper.

Yes, I am aware that this is the case in some states. However it may be unconstitutional. Now, has he been convicted of harrassment, or anything else? Or has he just got an order telling him not to call or approach her? If the latter, this is illegal, under my interpretation of constitutional law.

P.S.: your friend is a dick.

You can't just get a restraining order on a whim - you have to demonstrate that the person might be dangerous to you. If you can't make that demonstration, a peace warrant is about all you can get. Thus, if you have shown that the person might be dangerous to you, restricting them from carrying a weapon wouldn't be unconstitutional, as there would be a compelling interest.

You can't just get a restraining order on a whim - you have to demonstrate that the person might be dangerous to you. If you can't make that demonstration, a peace warrant is about all you can get. Thus, if you have shown that the person might be dangerous to you, restricting them from carrying a weapon wouldn't be unconstitutional, as there would be a compelling interest.

Please explain to me what a "peace warrent" is?

As I was getting at, merely proving that a person MIGHT be a danger to you should not be sufficient to deprive them of a constitutional right. To be legal, the person must be proven guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Yeah, I know it doesn't work that way. The way it does work is blatently unconstitutional.

That's out right ridiculous. Loosing your gun priviledges because of prank calling someone. Think about it; the whole cast of Crank Yankers wouldn't
be allowed to buy a handgun. I think that people use that restraining order
law for some stupid reasons - learn to take a joke people.

Harrassment is a crime and anyone found guilty of it should be punished. My point is that a restraining order is not proof of guilt.

And do you really believe that the calls on Crank Yankers are real? Then tell me why the callees have the same voices from episode to episode. If they were real, the producers and everyone else involved are guilty of conspiracy to commit harrassment, and should be punished. Not to mention that those called would sue them into the ground for using their voices in an entertainment program without consent.

P.S.: they are not gun privilages. They are gun RIGHTS.

Not necessarily.

You could allow simple weapons across the board, but anything more complicated would require a test, with licensing graded for different types of weapons (just like different types of cars). After all, the founding fathers didn't exactly have AKs and rocket launchers.

Indeed, what I am proposing is that qualifying exams and a clean criminal record should be used for people to own weapons that our domestic police forces do not use. Like rocket launchers. However, short of an amendment of the Second Amendment, possessing lesser arms is a constitutional right, and I do not believe that such tests should be required, as they infringe that right. BTW, back in the day we had mandatory gun ownership. You didn't have to apply, but instead you would be fined for NOT having a properly maintained gun!

You should be able to get a limited restarining order on a whim. That is, in fact, what the Do Not Call List is, and I support that. If you don't want your ex calling you, or if you don't want the Witnesses knocking on your door, or if you don't want your bill collectors calling you at work, you should be able to get a court order keeping them from it. This would not, of course, deprive them of their Second Amendment rights, or any other rights. When salesmen come knocking they are not excercising their rights, as there is no right to trespass. They can come knocking because, unless there is a court order or a no solicitation sign, there is the presumed permission to knock on your door, at a reasonable time of day.