The word Loophole: Making another Restriction on gun ownership, now its Hate Crimes

[wildrider666]

As we have seen the Fed continue to press legislation to restrict firearm purchase and ownership (confiscation). We have seen the list including protesters at abortion clinics, the VA, no fly list, neighbor complaints, even your obituary will get your guns confiscated from your spouse in some States. Now the gun grabbers want to add misdemeanor hate crimes. The only current misdemeanors that can revoke your gun rights are domestic violence and drugs. I agree with those. The hate crime misdemeanor is rife for abuse. Example. Your single and at a party when you get pinched on the butt. You turn and find a nice woman smiling: thing are good. She goes to the powder room. A minute later you get pinched again, turn around with a smile on you face to find a gay man expanding his smile to match what you had. Your pissed, feel violated and punch him. Cops, arrest, now Court. Prosecutor asks did you punch the woman when she pinched you? No, she is a woman and I am heterosexual. Did you punch the gay man? Yes, he is a man and I am not homosexual.
So its not the pinch that solicits the attack its the sexual orientation of the pincher? Ah, yes. You sir are guilty of a Hate Crime give me your guns and forfeit your firearm Rights for life. Remember there is a major PC push on hate speech and it includes speech that is just something a person does not want to hear (refer to libatard Campuses for this). If this Hate Crime Law gets passed, it will not be long till hate speech is added to it. Gun grabbers would love to take big chunks from our Rights but they are happy to chip away and take down one gun owner at a time.

http://www.guns.com/2016/02/25/lawmaker-seeks-to-take-guns-from-those-in-the-hate-crime-loophole/

 

[flyandscuba]

If they have their way - just being "conservative" will be a hate crime...

 

[Va boy]

A misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence means your gun rights go away forever with no way to have them restored. Ever. I totally disagree with anything but a felony causing one to lose their 2A rights. Even then, if not a weapons-related crime, I would evaluate for severity and judge from there. I heard its common in divorce procedings to file papers addressing restraint or no contact orders. Additionally the lawyer might include a domestic issue. If it doesn't get tossed and you plead to the DV charge, its over. Anybody ever hear of a warm and fuzzy, non-vindictive, amicable divorce?

 

[flyandscuba]

. Anybody ever hear of a warm and fuzzy, non-vindictive, amicable divorce?

Nope - because is is all about the theft of wealth. And, the family law attorneys cause what could be settled in a couple of months to drag on for two or more years...

 

[Idoono]

I agree about the overuse of DV. It is one thing if someone uses a weapon to threaten or assault a domestic partner. It is a wholly different thing when one partner feels "unsafe" or "threatened" because of a divorce with no real threat being evidenced or present. Then you take someone who has never been in any kind of trouble or has had any experience with the court system, threaten them with prison, and then offer them a "deal" of just probation to settle the case (without telling them they lose their rights for life),,,and there you have it. I predict that this is going to turn into the "drug sentences" of 30 plus years for marijuana that they had in the 70's and 80's which are now being overturned.

Idoono

 

[wildrider666]

A misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence means your gun rights go away forever with no way to have them restored. Ever. I totally disagree with anything but a felony causing one to lose their 2A rights. Even then, if not a weapons-related crime, I would evaluate for severity and judge from there. I heard its common in divorce procedings to file papers addressing restraint or no contact orders. Additionally the lawyer might include a domestic issue. If it doesn't get tossed and you plead to the DV charge, its over. Anybody ever hear of a warm and fuzzy, non-vindictive, amicable divorce?

In all my years, only one. She gave him a new Stetson after the gavel fell. He is my kids Godfather.

 

[wildrider666]

Just wait till tey broaden the scope of the Restraining Order restriction from domestic partner and children to include "ALL Types",
work place, neighbors, failed business partners. Then comes No Tresspass!

 

[Shooter]

P

I totally disagree with anything but a felony causing one to lose their 2A rights. Even then, if not a weapons-related crime, I would evaluate for severity and judge from there.

I agree with this. Do the crime...do the time...then get on with your life! Once a felon has done the time, whatever was adjudged adequate penalty for the crime, they should have all rights re-instated. When my kids did stupid things, like drinking at a party at 17, they were punished. When the punishment was over it was over. They were not barred from parties for life.

When a driver does 35 in a 15 mph School Zone they get a ticket. Even though they presented a more significant immediate danger to life and limb than a non-violent felon they don't even lose their driving PRIVLEDGES while someone who cheats on the IRS loses a Constitutional right.

When a well established nationally recognized news anchor manufactures false reports about a sitting President then presents them as fact on nation wide tv he didn't lose his First Amendment right of free speech. When a radicalized muslem kills in the name of allah they don't lose the right of freedom of religion. The go to prison and radicalize others while continuing to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights.

I know of an ex-gunsmith that lost his business, his Second Amendment rights and almost lost custody of his kids during a divorce. His ex filed a restraining order. He was in Target and saw his kids with his soon to be ex mother-in-law. While he was talking to the kids the MIL called the cops, she claimed he physically restrained the kids from leaving with her. Domestic Violence charges, restraing order, dirty divorce and a left leaning judge cost him his right to keep and bear arms, lost his FFL and had to close his shop.

There are plenty of examples lie this. When the felon has fully served his sentence he should have all rights restored after a one year transition period. I'm sure the big O will pardon a bucket full on his way out this fall. Ever one of them will immediately regain the right to bear arms regardless of their crime. Is that Justice?

 

[wildrider666]

Criminal Laws state what actions or conduct is prohibited and provide penalties for those convicted for breaking them. These penalties also act as a deterrent to those people considering breaking the law. Felony deterrents also include lose of voting privileges. My guess is 99.9% of crimes have nothing to do with voting. The imposed loss of gun and voting Rights is not based on the criminal act but on the "Peoples" decision to strip them from individuals who by their own actions show they can not be trusted with the responsibility of these Rights. There is no criminal act that does not trace back to a deliberate decision by the criminal, omission or ignorance is not an excuse. We have alternatives for those judged insane. There are no Felony "victimless" crimes. Even with the IRS, tax fraud is for the criminals personal gain and shifting their tax burden to other citizens. Its like saying being a Vietnan Era draft dodger is a victimless crime: somebody filled those scumbags slots! Why do Courts allow past criminal history to be considered during te sentencing phase? Past conduct has a direct bearing on on the outcome. The loss of Rights IS PART OF THE PENALITY not a seperate add on. I understand the perceived injustices in Cases noted above, but they had their day in Court. There is due process for having your Rights restored. Some may chose to CC in a Post Office. The penalty is a deterrent for some, others roll the dice. I am 100% in support of the restriction of Rights as currently imposed.

 

[Shooter]

If the loss of rights were in fact enacted as a crime derrent I would agree with you. Unfortunately the issue isn't about lessening or even controlling crime. It is about controlling guns. Until the Gun Control Act of 1968 felons only lost rights while incarcerated.

The GCA 68 was just another knee jerk, feel good, hey I did something action by a Democrat Congress and President. It followed the murders of JFK, BK and MLK. It was about controlling guns, who could own one, how they were sold and where they were sold.

As you can see the loss of rights only effects those that are normally law abiding citizens. Career criminals don't care what the law says. They will carry anyway. Someone who was bsted, for what is now a misdemeanor amount of pot, in 1970 still can't hunt today. In 1968 sodomy was a felony in all states. Today it is considered a right.

All I'm saying is no punishment should extend beyond the prison except capital crimes and punishment for those extends to eternity. The restriction of rights punishes every citizen of these United States. If they can restrict one person's rights they can restrict everyone's rights.

 

[wildrider666]

If the loss of rights were in fact enacted as a crime derrent I would agree with you. Unfortunately the issue isn't about lessening or even controlling crime. It is about controlling guns. Until the Gun Control Act of 1968 felons only lost rights while incarcerated.
The GCA 68 was just another knee jerk, feel good, hey I did something action by a Democrat Congress and President. It followed the murders of JFK, BK and MLK. It was about controlling guns, who could own one, how they were sold and where they were sold.

As you can see the loss of rights only effects those that are normally law abiding citizens. Career criminals don't care what the law says. They will carry anyway. Someone who was bsted, for what is now a misdemeanor amount of pot, in 1970 still can't hunt today. In 1968 sodomy was a felony in all states. Today it is considered a right.

All I'm saying is no punishment should extend beyond the prison except capital crimes and punishment for those extends to eternity. The restriction of rights punishes every citizen of these United States. estrict one person's rights they can restrict everyone's rights.

I don't support the VPC or the general premise of the article but it does provide information on the issues. Congress had already passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which made it illegal for felons convicted of a violent crime to own a gun, the Gun Control Act expanded the prohibition to include all felony crimes. It has felon v. Gun Rights issue and examples of restored Rights gone bad. It does bash the NRA and you position though that is not my intent, only history and result are relevant.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm.

There is a Relief from Disabilities Law tat allows restricted persons to petition for restoration of gun rights. It has been abused and also led to tragic final results. This program had its funding removed and specifically tax dollars (and felon pays the costs) are not allowed.

The felony firearms restriction does not impact all Americans, only those that CHOOSE to live with or be in the proximity of felons. To argue the position that the felon gun restriction is bad because criminals will get guns if they want them is poor at best to support restoring all felons gun rights. Its not all about the "gun", its about the character, judgement integrity and responsibilitie of posession by a person that has proven by their conviction that they are not as trustworthy as Law abiding Citizens. Break the Law, pay the price-in full.

How about a 77% recidivism rate for prior offenders?
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/recidivism_study/

 

[Shooter]

Your post shows exactly how slippery a slope restriction of Rights can be. For the first 160 years only some of your rights were forfeit and then ONLY while incarcerated. Then you it was a loss of rights for violent felons. Thirty years later all felons have their rights restricted or stripped completely even if the crime had nothing to do with voting or firearms. Then that loss of rights was expanded to include everyone present at any time on that felons property.

Where does it stop? Why not include his neighbors? What is stopping him from walking next door to secure a firearm? Why not strip his spouse of the right to vote? He could have influenced how she would vote or by proxy vote how he wants to vote! I believe it was Sheriff Taylor, Andy Griffith, who said, " This is gettin' curiouser and curiouser!"

Why doesn't a person convicted of bombing a church or committing jihad lose their Right of Religious freedom? Why doesn't someone convicted of slander or liable lose the Right of Free Speech? Again, I assert it isn't about controlling crime but controlling guns.

Recidivism rates have historically been high. While I couldn't located studies prior to the 18th century there was anecdotal evidence of thieves in Persia and the Middle East with both hands cut off of some being beheaded because of second offenses. If removing a hand doesn't stop all thieves then nothing short of death will.

The crimes with the highest recidivism rates are the crimes with the lightest sentences, crimes of public disorder. Public drunkenness, prostitution, substance abuse, rioting and unlawful assembly are the most common. How many Black Lives Matter activist were arrested? Not enough. They were made to think in some cities that rioting was a Right.

You and I will never solve the problem. Even physical restraint doesn't prevent crime or we wouldn't have contraband trafficking, robbery, rape and murder in our prisons. No matter what punishment is posed some will return to a life of crime. Those that don't should have their rights restored until that return.

 

[Va boy]

I used to think the rights of those convicted, sentenced and who served their time didn't matter. But like above, I realized later in life the time served should be full payment for the crime if not weapons related. I'll add that Personal Crimes like rape, homicide and kidnapping should be deal breakers. Otherwise I believe gun and voting rights should be restored. Where's the thought process behind denying the voting privilege? On the gun matter I believe it's totally about gun control.

 

[wildrider666]

Some chose to use convoluted hypotheticals to distract from the issue. The prison recidivism is 77%.
I support existing Law of 100% firearm restriction for felony convictions.
Some positions contrary to Law want to arm 23% of felons who MAY NOT re offend and the 77% THAT WILL (+- a few %).
Some positions want to pick and choose what felony crimes get restricted. You may want to look at criminal activity from juvenile to adult or just read the headlines of prior charges and convictions on their records before they shot or killed someone. These are the ones you are choosing to re arm.
Some say the criminals will get guns anyway but why would you give them legal and easier path to get guns for their criminal activities?
Please read this again and focus on the victim impact that 77% creates.

If you want to ignore the 77% recidivism rate then you believe your entire firearms training and investment is solely preperation against first time felony offenders. It has to be because you want to re arm them and logic dictates you don't arm a threat.