Lucky... 0
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteIt's preemptory. It sucks, but iff he kills 50 people at a mall, that sucks too.
Rights are not rights if they can be stripped as "peremptory."
Joe Snuffy might be harboring explosives so he has no 4th Amendment rights. This would be considered an abomination. A person's 5th Amendment rights might result in a not guilty verdict. A peremptory limiting of a person's First Amendment rights would also be an abomination. (I know you believe that a person's First Amendment rights should yield to your idea of an orderly society, meaning that one viewpoint should be stifled so that the other viewpoint doesn't burn down cities and kill others). What about the Sixth Amendment (think of the Patriot Act preventing a speedy trial).
These rights are not to protect the power base. Rights are there to protect those who are otherwise found not-desirable. The Second Amendment is one of those rights.
The 4th is not absolute, the 5th also. The 2nd is also very limited and now for teh safety of society they revoked it for this guy. Again, I haven't supported / criticized this move, I just defined it.
Lucky... 0
Quoteit is quite clear that people with mental disorders above a certain threshhold should not be allowed have guns
Exactly, but some feel 50 dead at a maall is better than 1 man's rights being suspended until he recovers.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteit is quite clear that people with mental disorders above a certain threshhold should not be allowed have guns
Exactly, but some feel 50 dead at a maall is better than 1 man's rights being suspended until he recovers.
Of course, the fallacy in your argument is the ASSumption that the person is violent, that the doctor knew that and that the doctor did NOT report the condition under the provisions of GCA '68 or any applicable state laws.
And the LARGEST one - that any of the 'gun nuts' on the board have stated that they're ok with it. In fact, I challenge you to find a post that says that.
While you're looking that up and playing in your gun control fantasy world, the rest of us will continue the discussion here in the real world.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
skybill 19
Who are the "Loonies??," Wayne or the hoplophobic bureaucratic brethren who administrate rules and regulations that are held over our heads?? Got Guns?? Molon Labe!!!!
III%,
Deli-out
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteit is quite clear that people with mental disorders above a certain threshhold should not be allowed have guns
Exactly, but some feel 50 dead at a maall is better than 1 man's rights being suspended until he recovers.QuoteOf course, the fallacy in your argument is the ASSumption that the person is violent, that the doctor knew that and that the doctor did NOT report the condition under the provisions of GCA '68 or any applicable state laws.
You don't have to be violent to have your 2nd pulled, just below the capacity threshold.QuoteAnd the LARGEST one - that any of the 'gun nuts' on the board have stated that they're ok with it. In fact, I challenge you to find a post that says that.
Um, where did I say that any of the gun nuts are ok with it? You're losing it, Mike; should we have your capacity checked?QuoteWhile you're looking that up and playing in your gun control fantasy world, the rest of us will continue the discussion here in the real world.
I am not for gun control in the context that you are stating, in fact I wish full autos were legal w/o a class 3, so keep the guise going.
Until then, show where I said that other gun nits are ok with his 2nd suspension.
mnealtx 0
QuoteYou don't have to be violent to have your 2nd pulled, just below the capacity threshold.
If he's not violent, he's not going to be 'killing 50 people at a mall', now is he?
QuoteUm, where did I say that any of the gun nuts are ok with it? You're losing it, Mike; should we have your capacity checked?
"some feel that 50 dead at a mall is better than 1 man's rights being suspended until he recovers"
QuoteUntil then, show where I said that other gun nits are ok with his 2nd suspension.
See above - unless you're saying that the Brady bunch are okay with '50 dead at a mall'.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
BIGUN 1,069
QuoteWhether or not this is constitutional depends on whether Arkansas provides a mechanism for prompt judicial review of this action. IM(P)O, there needs to be an immediate judicial hearing at which the burden is on the government to establish, through judicially competent evidence, that the veteran is suffering from a mental illness of a nature and severity - essentially an appreciable risk to himself or others - that restriction of his 2nd Amendment right is warranted. By way of legal analogy, I'd think the hearing and evidentiary requirements would probably be very similar to a civil MH commitment hearing ( the potential result of which could be a person's loss of liberty by being committed to a mental hospital). In the absence of such immediate judicial review, it's probably unconstitutional, both on 2nd Amendment and Due Process grounds.
So since you bring up a good point... Section F of the ATF form asks, "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"
First, he has PTSD which is a recognized mental illness for which certain behaviors cannot be determined... future violence, future drug use, etc. etc. First, the VA did not turn him in to ATF, he took a gun out of a pawn shop which warrants a new ATF form 4473 for transference of ownership. The form is what tripped him up. From my perspective, there is no harm done here. And, he should accept that he has a mental illness. Of issue to me is the ATF stating that he cannot have a gun in his home. To me, the real issue is his wife's right to bear arms. Are they saying that she cannot get a CCW and if so that is a greater threat to her constitutional rights, personal safety, etc.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteYou don't have to be violent to have your 2nd pulled, just below the capacity threshold.
QuoteIf he's not violent, he's not going to be 'killing 50 people at a mall', now is he?
Let me clarify for those not able to understand obvious inferrence. He doesn't have to have a violent past recorded in psych, court or other record in order to be dtermined below the threshold.QuoteUm, where did I say that any of the gun nuts are ok with it? You're losing it, Mike; should we have your capacity checked?
Quote"some feel that 50 dead at a mall is better than 1 man's rights being suspended until he recovers"
Right and you interpreted that mean gun nuts in here. Thik globally, grasshopper. There is a world outside of here, in spite of the fact that you're here almost every waking momnent.QuoteUntil then, show where I said that other gun nits are ok with his 2nd suspension.
QuoteSee above - unless you're saying that the Brady bunch are okay with '50 dead at a mall'.
Again, I can reference people outside of DZ.COM, apparently you cannot. No where did I say anything about gun nuts in DZ.COM, I simply said, "some." Furthermore, I'm a gun nut in here, so there's 1. Altho I'm huge for 2nd rights, there has to be and there are limits.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteWhether or not this is constitutional depends on whether Arkansas provides a mechanism for prompt judicial review of this action. IM(P)O, there needs to be an immediate judicial hearing at which the burden is on the government to establish, through judicially competent evidence, that the veteran is suffering from a mental illness of a nature and severity - essentially an appreciable risk to himself or others - that restriction of his 2nd Amendment right is warranted. By way of legal analogy, I'd think the hearing and evidentiary requirements would probably be very similar to a civil MH commitment hearing ( the potential result of which could be a person's loss of liberty by being committed to a mental hospital). In the absence of such immediate judicial review, it's probably unconstitutional, both on 2nd Amendment and Due Process grounds.
So since you bring up a good point... Section F of the ATF form asks, "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"
First, he has PTSD which is a recognized mental illness for which certain behaviors cannot be determined... future violence, future drug use, etc. etc. First, the VA did not turn him in to ATF, he took a gun out of a pawn shop which warrants a new ATF form 4473 for transference of ownership. The form is what tripped him up. From my perspective, there is no harm done here. And, he should accept that he has a mental illness. Of issue to me is the ATF stating that he cannot have a gun in his home. To me, the real issue is his wife's right to bear arms. Are they saying that she cannot get a CCW and if so that is a greater threat to her constitutional rights, personal safety, etc.
I agree with the first part, once he recovers he can then posess a gun. As for his wife having one, that's a tricky issue. If a woman is married to felon, can she own a gun? I mean if the ATF says person X can't be in posession of a gun then they shouldn't be allowed to be near one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou don't have to be violent to have your 2nd pulled, just below the capacity threshold.
QuoteIf he's not violent, he's not going to be 'killing 50 people at a mall', now is he?
Let me clarify for those not able to understand obvious inferrence. He doesn't have to have a violent past recorded in psych, court or other record in order to be dtermined below the threshold.
Wrong - read GCA '68.QuoteRight and you interpreted that mean gun nuts in here. Thik globally, grasshopper. There is a world outside of here,
And you're posting in here, not 'in that world outside of here'.Quotein spite of the fact that you're here almost every waking momnent.
Wrong yet again - I'm actually only here when I'm at work, making that salary that lets me afford insurance.QuoteAgain, I can reference people outside of DZ.COM, apparently you cannot.
And if you had MEANT people outside of dizzy-dot, you would have said that.QuoteFurthermore, I'm a gun nut in here, so there's 1. Altho I'm huge for 2nd rights, there has to be and there are limits.
"Huge for 2nd rights".... SURE ya are...Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuote
Guaranteed? The red regimes in the USSR, China, prove otherwise.
being an atheist and killing someone isnt the same as killing in the name of atheism so you are woefully misinformed and 100% wrong im afraid
It's hard to reply to such a clueless statement. There's no question that those two nations attacked religion, and China continues to do so. For fuck sake, ever read Marx?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites