Recommended Posts
kallend 2,027
www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?google_editors_picks=true
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
Quote
So the judge should be impeached
but I am sure you want to use this as a blanket comment to remove guns from all
Your agenda exposed again
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote
So what was the point you wished to make here to lawrocket?
This article is meaty, but also quite rambling. It jumps in and out of subjects with no need, and the phrasings and at times deliberate vagueness shows a clear agenda by the writers. It does raise lots of interesting questions.
But if you're implying the headliner case was a clear one of a wacko getting his guns back despite obvious evidence, it wasn't presented in this article. (It's also quite a game - the mental aspect was introduced in the opening, and not elaborated on until the closing paragraphs 5 pages later)
You could (and should have) opened an entire thread on this article. Issues like
1) should felons get their rights back? IMO, no. No voting, no guns. Doubly so for the violent ones
2) should misdomeanors be treated like felonies in terms of loss of rights. Again, IMO, no. If the crime doesn't even warrant a year in jail, then it doesn't warrant loss of rights either.
3) should judges have full, partial, or no discretion in ruling on a rights restoration? The hardest one - but the article correctly points out a perspective that some judges will never grant the motion, just as most sheriffs in CA will never issue a CCW. Objective criteria tend to be more suitable.
4) does having the legal right to purchase a gun actually make much of a difference in repeat crime by felons? The authors hide behind the issue of data being difficult to obtain. But they were perfectly happy to cherry pick incidents to support their assertion. But we already know that ex cons tend to commit lots of crime and most of them do it with guns they did not purchase with a NICS check.
beyond those questions, you see examples of process breakdown. Generally the solution to these is to improve the process while maintaining the rights of Americans - ie, there is a presumption they have their rights until there is conclusive evidence that they should not.
This is a pretty good article, John. Of course, I’m wondering why you are directing it at me. As much as anything, it seems as though this is talking about exactly the sort of things DFWAJG and I (as well as a few others) have mentioned. I’ll go back through them.
No. 1 – the best predictor of future violence is past violence. It looks like this article is focused almost ENTIRELY on people with a past history of violence getting their gun rights restored. What this has to do with disarming an anorexic because she has a mental illness is unknown. The article did not describe any “nutter” with a gun. The article did describe a series of persons with a history of violence who got their gun rights restored and not about someone with a diagnosis of mental illness who should have had guns taken away.
No. 2 – The article correctly identifies the tension that I have discussed between a “right” and public safety. From the article: “Two Democratic legislators sought to impose a lifetime firearms ban on violent felons, although they concluded that for their bills to have any chance of passing, they would also have to set up a process that held out a hope of eventual restoration.”
This is not just something for hopes of passing, but also a matter of the Constitution. Because it is a right, the right to a gun cannot be summarily ended and generally there will be a “hope” of getting those rights restored. It is the presence of a system for restoration that is important in due process considerations.
No. 3 – the article discusses the taking of gun rights. In this article, the way that the gun rights are taken are things that I can support. Somebody commits an affirmative act that is viewed as inconsistent with gun ownership and that person gets sentenced and loses his/her gun rights. This is WHOLLY different from what I’ve taken issue with in the past – where a person is considered weird or a nutter or even have some mental illness and therefore should have their guns summarily removed even though the individual has never acted violently or threatened violence.
EVERY case stated in this article had a prior act of violence (or even a nonviolent felony). If you think I’ll have a problem with that, you have misjudged me.
No. 4 – the article discusses the various systems in place, including those of the federal government and those of various states. Each of these has their own nuances. Some give judges broad discretion and others give judges no discretion. Neither is right nor wrong, in my opinion. Nevertheless, each provides some hope of restoration of rights. As also stated in the article by one person (and a phrase I’ve repeated), all rights bestowed are given equal dignity.
No. 5 – The adversarial nature or lack thereof. It was mentioned that some of these states have systems in place whereupon the petition is put forth with no opposition. I myself have little problem with a system that would require some kind of report to be issued in terms of the restoration of gun rights. I think it would be wise to have a system whereupon a petition gets filed and an investigator does some fact finding and prepares a report and recommendation to the court. These are seen all the time in child custody and guardianship matters, so there is plenty of practice in implementing these things. Yes, it will also make the matter more expensive, but no more so than a guardianship.
These are the sorts of things with which I have no problem because there is a system set up that will allow rights to be restored.
In all, I think the article was very good because it shows anybody who reads it who might say, “There has to be a system set up” that there IS a system set up. A bunch of them, in fact. I think that in the coming years, we may see a Model Code drafted that would allow all of the states to become signatories with minor tweaks and changes. This would also create a system of communication between the several states so that each knows what the other is doing fairly well.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
No. 1 – the best predictor of future violence is past violence. It looks like this article is focused almost ENTIRELY on people with a past history of violence getting their gun rights restored. What this has to do with disarming an anorexic because she has a mental illness is unknown. The article did not describe any “nutter” with a gun. The article did describe a series of persons with a history of violence who got their gun rights restored and not about someone with a diagnosis of mental illness who should have had guns taken away.
No. 2 – The article correctly identifies the tension that I have discussed between a “right” and public safety. From the article: “Two Democratic legislators sought to impose a lifetime firearms ban on violent felons, although they concluded that for their bills to have any chance of passing, they would also have to set up a process that held out a hope of eventual restoration.”
This is not just something for hopes of passing, but also a matter of the Constitution. Because it is a right, the right to a gun cannot be summarily ended and generally there will be a “hope” of getting those rights restored. It is the presence of a system for restoration that is important in due process considerations.
No. 3 – the article discusses the taking of gun rights. In this article, the way that the gun rights are taken are things that I can support. Somebody commits an affirmative act that is viewed as inconsistent with gun ownership and that person gets sentenced and loses his/her gun rights. This is WHOLLY different from what I’ve taken issue with in the past – where a person is considered weird or a nutter or even have some mental illness and therefore should have their guns summarily removed even though the individual has never acted violently or threatened violence.
EVERY case stated in this article had a prior act of violence (or even a nonviolent felony). If you think I’ll have a problem with that, you have misjudged me.
No. 4 – the article discusses the various systems in place, including those of the federal government and those of various states. Each of these has their own nuances. Some give judges broad discretion and others give judges no discretion. Neither is right nor wrong, in my opinion. Nevertheless, each provides some hope of restoration of rights. As also stated in the article by one person (and a phrase I’ve repeated), all rights bestowed are given equal dignity.
No. 5 – The adversarial nature or lack thereof. It was mentioned that some of these states have systems in place whereupon the petition is put forth with no opposition. I myself have little problem with a system that would require some kind of report to be issued in terms of the restoration of gun rights. I think it would be wise to have a system whereupon a petition gets filed and an investigator does some fact finding and prepares a report and recommendation to the court. These are seen all the time in child custody and guardianship matters, so there is plenty of practice in implementing these things. Yes, it will also make the matter more expensive, but no more so than a guardianship.
These are the sorts of things with which I have no problem because there is a system set up that will allow rights to be restored.
In all, I think the article was very good because it shows anybody who reads it who might say, “There has to be a system set up” that there IS a system set up. A bunch of them, in fact. I think that in the coming years, we may see a Model Code drafted that would allow all of the states to become signatories with minor tweaks and changes. This would also create a system of communication between the several states so that each knows what the other is doing fairly well.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
Do you own any firearms?
(yes, a non sequitor, but relevant to show bias)
QuoteQuote
Do you own any firearms?
(yes, a non sequitor, but relevant to show bias)
I believe he lives in Cook County, so it wasn't an option until the last year or so.
Back in the day, schizophrenics and mentally ill were simply placed in custody and remained in custody indefinitely. Then the SCOTUS decided O’Connor v. Donaldson in 1975 and determined that a state cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. That means that the government cannot force a person to remain is the person is not a present threat. They can only force a person for treatment if that person is mentally ill and an immediate threat. The decision was unanimous, as was the Foucha case, which held that holding a person "against his will in a mental institution is improper absent a determination in civil commitment proceedings of current mental illness and dangerousness."
The point? The government cannot imprison a mentally ill person for being mentally ill. Once the mentally ill person is treated, the government cannot force the person to stay.
It was a good system, so long as the presumption that they had individual rights was taken away. These homes and other places are available, but the mentally ill have the choice not to use them.
That’s the problem. “They can be made safe.” But they also have a choice in the matter.
Yep. Which is what the Constitution mandates. In many ways it sucks but in other ways it’s a source of pride that even the mentally ill have right.
Weird. Had you ever considered telling them, “Those are the voices again?” They understand that they are the voices. But it seems that too many people try to convince them they aren’t hearing what they are hearing. They are people, and an acknowledgment of what they are hearing and an explanation of what it is can do wonders.
Ever see what can happen when a person is prescribed Coumadin but is unsupervised and doesn’t make sure that his/her INR is monitored? Death. But do we keep everybody confined to a hospital with a blood clot? How about anybody with access to medications that can be deadly if sold on the black market? How many people die from abusing vicodin? Do we keep people on pain pills confined because of the risk that they’ll sell the meds on the outside and get people killed? This kills a rather large number of people.
To limit their rights would be considered an outrage.
Well said.
I agree. The problem, as I see it, is the lack of anybody wanting to point out the prospective threat to the authorities. Maybe if the result wasn't so draconian, people would be more willing to get people help versus ruining their futures.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites