3 Dead in Delaware Courthouse shooting

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

We have laws against murder, robbery, arson--all kinds of things. Well your logic suggests we shouldn't have them.

No, his logic suggests that the simple existence of a law does not physically prevent human behavior, especially in persons with an established habit of breaking the law. The law exists to do what it is meant to do: provide the basis for the apprehension, prosecution, and punishment of offenders.

[Cameron]

The son was convicted in a federal court so the laws in Texas wouldn't apply. Unless he can convince the President to grant him a pardon, there has been no mechanism in place to remove a federal disability since 1992.

Are you saying that we know the son had a gun, too?

Are people still under a federal disability if their state has restored their rights?

[Gopher]

Are you saying that we know the son had a gun, too?

I'm not saying that since I don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding the father, the son and any firearms that either may have possessed. However, under federal law, felons and firearms don't mix. There are very few exceptions. Ready access to a firearm is really no different than possession of a firearm. That alone would have been a violation of the terms of his supervised release. What the Fed's ultimately decide to do is anyone's guess.

Are people still under a federal disability if their state has restored their rights?

The son was convicted in a federal court. Only the Fed’s can remove that disability. No state has any say in that. Had he been convicted in a state court then that state’s rules for removing the disability would apply unless those rules conflicted with federal law. In that case, federal law would supersede state law and the disability would remain in effect.

[ms maggie]

Persons with a poorly-formed moral compass need the threat of punishment to keep themselves in line. Most people do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. It is not the fear of punishment that keeps me from running around shooting people; it is because, absent a very specific set of circumstances, it would be very wrong to do so. Your Mileage May Vary.

Well if everyone were perfect, like you (and of course me) we wouldn't need laws period. And nobody would ever leave a shopping cart in the parking lot, or not wash their hands after going to the bathroom.

I happen to believe that if it were a law that carried a hefty fine and imprisonment that to sell a gun without a thorough background check, regardless of selling as a private individual or not, and if those laws were enforced, you would cut down on guns into the wrong hands.

[ms maggie]

No, his logic suggests that the simple existence of a law does not physically prevent human behavior, especially in persons with an established habit of breaking the law. The law exists to do what it is meant to do: provide the basis for the apprehension, prosecution, and punishment of offenders.

Great so let's make univeral background checks and large capacity magazines illegal. At least then we can limit the damage done by people who don't have an established habit of breaking the law, like most of our recent mass murderers.

[Cameron]

I'm not saying that since I don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding the father, the son and any firearms that either may have possessed. However, under federal law, felons and firearms don't mix. There are very few exceptions. Ready access to a firearm is really no different than possession of a firearm. That alone would have been a violation of the terms of his supervised release. What the Fed's ultimately decide to do is anyone's guess.

The son was convicted in a federal court. Only the Fed’s can remove that disability. No state has any say in that. Had he been convicted in a state court then that state’s rules for removing the disability would apply unless those rules conflicted with federal law. In that case, federal law would supersede state law and the disability would remain in effect.

The words in the Federal Gun Control Act don't agree with you:

For purposes of the Gun Control Act, a person is not considered convicted if he or she (1) has been pardoned, (2) had his or her civil rights restored or set aside. . .

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0617.htm

(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

~ Gun Control Act

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

Great so let's make univeral background checks and large capacity magazines illegal. At least then we can limit the damage done by people who don't have an established habit of breaking the law, like most of our recent mass murderers.

How many of "our recent mass murders" would have failed a background check?

How are three ten-round magazines significantly less deadly than one thirty-round magazine?

I think you are chasing a pipe dream. There is no way you can prevent random bad outcomes in a free society.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

I happen to believe that if it were a law that carried a hefty fine and imprisonment that to sell a gun without a thorough background check, regardless of selling as a private individual or not, and if those laws were enforced, you would cut down on guns into the wrong hands.

I am not sure that the effect will be as great as you think. Guns are very durable objects and there are already enough out there in "the wrong hands" to last well into the next century.

[Jeebus]

I happen to believe that if it were a law that carried a hefty fine and imprisonment that to sell a gun without a thorough background check, regardless of selling as a private individual or not, and if those laws were enforced, you would cut down on guns into the wrong hands.

So you believe that a stronger punishment deters crime?

Murder can carry a life sentence, or can carry the death penalty.

So obviously, states with the death penaly have lower murder rates, right?

Oh, nevermind.

[ms maggie]

So you believe that a stronger punishment deters crime?

Murder can carry a life sentence, or can carry the death penalty.

So obviously, states with the death penaly have lower murder rates, right?

Oh, nevermind.

The death penalty has been proven not to be a deterrent over and over again.

I think if most gun owners and gun sellers are law-abiding, then less guns will get into the wrong hands if we enact several of the proposed laws. Unless you are suggesting these folks aren't law abiding?

I would also make it a crime, as in a felony, not to report a stolen or lost gun.

[Smokey 1]

I would also make it a crime, as in a felony, not to report a stolen or lost gun.

That law is just a set up for confiscation. If that part of the law passes everyone who has guns on record should report them as lost.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

I wonder why those who want more gun control aren't calling for the elimination of plea bargaining away gun charges and making stiffer, mandantory sentances for those convicted of gun crimes. Then there would be fewer "wrong hands" loose on the street in the first place. It seems they would rather force the law abiding jump through more hoops than making more trouble for the criminals.

[Cameron]

I wonder why those who want more gun control aren't calling for the elimination of plea bargaining away gun charges and making stiffer, mandantory sentances for those convicted of gun crimes. Then there would be fewer "wrong hands" loose on the street in the first place. It seems they would rather force the law abiding jump through more hoops than making more trouble for the criminals.

The Second protects our individual right to self-defense.

I'm not sure what compelling interest a government has in restricting the right self-defense to "law-abiding citizens."

It hardly seems kosher that just because a person was convicted of a crime, he becomes a lifelong target for the George Zimmermans of the country.

[markh]

We have laws against murder, robbery, arson--all kinds of things. Well your logic suggests we shouldn't have them.

I think his suggestion is that there are laws on the books that should have kept the shooter from possessing a firearm. More laws will not prevent criminals from acquiring weapons or murdering others.

That is what I was talking about. If they enforce the laws on the books things would improve.

[Gopher]

The words in the Federal Gun Control Act don't agree with you:

Fortunately, the Supreme Court does.

The Supreme Court answered the question as to whether or not a federal disability resulting from a qualifying conviction in a federal court can be removed if a state restores an individual’s civil rights including the right to possess firearms. The answer is no. The jurisdiction that caused the disability is the only jurisdiction that can provide relief. (Beecham v. United States.) No state can offer relief from a federal disability. Only the Fed’s can provide that and, at this time, there is no mechanism in place to remove a federal disability caused by a qualifying conviction in a federal court except for a presidential pardon. (United States et al v. Bean.)

A disability caused by a qualifying conviction in a state court causes a federal disability to become active as a result and applies in all fifty states. The state that caused the disability can provide relief but the Fed’s are under no obligation to accept the terms of that relief. If the state relief restricts ownership or possession of firearms in any way, the federal disability remains in full force and effect in all fifty states including the state that provided the relief. (Caron v. United States.) The same has applied in the past to those who have had their records expunged as well as those who have been adjudicated mentally ill.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[Cameron]

Fortunately, the Supreme Court does.

The Supreme Court answered the question as to whether or not a federal disability resulting from a qualifying conviction in a federal court can be removed if a state restores an individual’s civil rights including the right to possess firearms. The answer is no. The jurisdiction that caused the disability is the only jurisdiction that can provide relief. (Beecham v. United States.) No state can offer relief from a federal disability. Only the Fed’s can provide that and, at this time, there is no mechanism in place to remove a federal disability caused by a qualifying conviction in a federal court except for a presidential pardon. (United States et al v. Bean.)

A disability caused by a qualifying conviction in a state court causes a federal disability to become active as a result and applies in all fifty states. The state that caused the disability can provide relief but the Fed’s are under no obligation to accept the terms of that relief. If the state relief restricts ownership or possession of firearms in any way, the federal disability remains in full force and effect in all fifty states including the state that provided the relief. (Caron v. United States.) The same has applied in the past to those who have had their records expunged as well as those who have been adjudicated mentally ill.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Yes, it does.

I did wonder whether jurisdiction meant jurisdiction over the original crime or over the person, but I think this is all kinda moot because it all pre-dates Heller and I expect these restrictions to be challenged.

The Second protects our individual right to self-defense.

I'm not sure what compelling interest a government has in restricting the right of self-defense to "law-abiding citizens."

It hardly seems kosher that just because a person was convicted of a crime, he becomes a lifelong target for the George Zimmermans of the country.