Man Defends Himself With Illegal Gun - Faces Charges

[JoeP]

When convicted and put in jail, you lose your natural right of liberty.
When convicted and fined for something, you lose your right to a certain amount of property ($$).
When probable cause exists, you lose your 4A protection against search.

So rights are restricted or removed as a matter of course when an individual is guilty of certain crimes, or even suspected of illegal activity, in the case of search.

I see nobody seriously arguing that people in prison should have access to weapons in order to comply with the 2A.

That said, I think if someone does the time and pays for their crime, they should be entitled to at least petition to regain 2A rights. However this decision should depend on the what they were originally convicted of. For example, a person convicted of committing an armed robbery should stand very little chance of regaining the right to bear arms, IMO.

Edit: BTW, in regard to the original article. He technically broke the law. That said, I also think it is clear that the jury should most definitely nullify. That is what jurys are for: they look at the facts and circumstances of the case. I think this guy has a very good chance getting this thrown out.

[GIThruster]

I agree with all Joe is posting above.

There is a huge difference between someone convicted of a violent crime, who loses their right to bear arms for the rest of their life, and someone convicted of some other sort of crime where we have no plausible reason to suspect would pose a physical threat.

And just saying, things like these are best left to judges. Judges are the folks left in charge of the details. They look at the whole case, all the circumstances and make an educated decision. We trust them for sentencing for just this reason and should trust them for long term consequences for just the same reasons.

It doesn't matter that anyone can find judges that have made findings we don't like. They are the last defense of personal liberty by design--for more than 3,000 years in Western civilization. We pay fantastical cash in support of judges who have supposedly earned their place in society, and like it or not, the judiciary is what it is for very good reasons.

If a douchbag uses a gun for a violent crime, he should NEVER be allowed access to guns in the future. He has sacrificed that right to society.

[ladajo]

If a douchbag uses a gun for a violent crime, he should NEVER be allowed access to guns in the future. He has sacrificed that right to society.

And if he does again? Do you really think the average douchebag cares if he can have a gun or not?

Violent offender Felons are routinely court restricted from guns as a condition of probation. A number of them go get them anyway once back on the street.

[GIThruster]

Yes well, that's a different problem though, isn't it? It's one thing to make a ruling or a call, or a law. Enforcement is something else. Illegal possession of a firearm doesn't always go unnoticed however.

[ladajo]

Think about the two douchebag kids in Georgia that skipped school, and then shot a woman in the leg and her 13 month old boy in his stroller in the face (obviously lethal). They did this at 9:00a.m. in town, near the local post office after asking her for money, and she said she did not have any.
I am willing to bet, that whenever 17 year old douchebag (who apparently did the shooting) gets out of jail on probation, he will be banned from possessing a gun, by law, and he will go get one anyway, and then more than likely get shot or shoot someone again. That is, if he survives jail. I would like to think that he doesn't.

So how do you NEVER allow someone like him a gun again? Do you execute him? Cut his hands off? Maybe his arms, just to be sure? Life in prison?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/23/us/georgi ... ?hpt=hp_t1

[GIThruster]

I'm not here proposing different laws than what we a have. I haven't been trying to fashion a solution so much as defend those that we have. It's perfectly reasonable that people have a gut reaction against the laws that ban convicted felons from ever possessing a firearms again. I'm just saying I agree with the law. It is perfectly reasonable that people sacrifice certain rights when they commit a crime. You lose your right to liberty at least temporarily when you're convicted. If you can lose such an inalienable right, then you can lose your right to keep and bear arms as well.

As to further remedies against specific kinds of heinous crimes, I am a strong proponent of capital punishment. Anyone who deliberately shoots a baby in the face is obviously not worthy of society. We need to be able to send the message that there are indeed certain kinds of actions that will get you executed. Georgia has capital punishment. So why didn't these two receive it? I'm not familiar with the case, but I guess it's because of their tender years?

[ladajo]

This one just happened.
I vote they do fry them. But I don't live in Georgia.

It is kind of like the right to vote. You can lose it. But why not for going on the government dole? Is that not also a measure of ones ability to contribute to society? If you break the law you demonstrate a lack of contribution, it can cost you freedoms. Why not remove liberties for other things that demonstrate a lack of ability to contribute?

[GIThruster]

It is kind of like the right to vote. You can lose it. But why not for going on the government dole?

I think we've been over this before and I agree, but this is a radical change, from a democracy to a meritocracy. I don't personally believe we can move on to a new system until the one we have crashes and burns, and then Heinlein may well prove a prophet. The political scene he envisioned did indeed cope specifically with the troubles we have that half the populous does not contribute but rather just lives off the fat. People like simon. In Starship Troopers, the problem is solved between forming a distinction between those who have earned the right to vote and those who have not. In that world, simon surely would not get a vote.

There are however problems with that political system too. What do you do about people who earn the right of full citizenship, for example through military service, and then ever after make no contributions to society? Once you use the idea of merit to earn full participation in society, where to draw the line between civilian and citizen starts to become a chore.

Back in the 70's, before anyone could have envisioned the internet, there was a proposal for "cube TV" which would connect every home with a voting system and allow anyone who passed a competency exam to vote on an issue. Of course, writing the materials that describe each issue turns out to be the seat of power, but the point was again, that people earned the right or merited the ability to vote. They were not just presumed competent to weigh in on issues they know nothing about. That's another version of meritocracy and I personally think it has much to offer. By proving your competence on any single issue, you demonstrate your vote has force and value. I think it's about time our political system caught up to out technology. Such a thing would not be difficult given the internet, and people would get bragging rights over each issue they mastered. Folks would compare how many issues they voted on in a year, encourage their friends to take any upcoming tests the topic of which was important to them, etc. This seems to me would bring us back to a responsible society.