No announcement yet.

So tell me again, isn't this a cute way to ban ALL semi-auto weapons?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
    We may be talking about two different approaches here (or we may not) I am talking about an evaluation that takes place as part of a licence application to own a firearm, prior to any purchase being possible. Based on your (and other's) response I take it that a license is not required for long-rifle purchases? wait... it varies from state to state doesn't it? in some yes you need a license for purchase/possession and in others you do not?

    Anyway what I was thinking is the approach of "Yes you have the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment. However are you fit to do so mentally and emotionally?"

    I don't see it as a burden of 'Prove to us you're sane' situation so much as an opportunity of 'Prove that I am not fit. I'll take that challenge'

    I see your point Cambronne about the complication I am suggesting. I guess that's part of the issue with the second amendment (no I am not hacking on it) in this day and age. Too many other factors that are shades of grey impacting what is a very Black and White statement.

    My approach comes form my environment obviously. I believe in the right to bear arms even though up here it is accorded as a privilege. But I don't have an issue with the examination required to get my licences. I remember a couple of people in my classes that were not fit to own firearms. One of them was weeded out during the Restricted License practical exam because he swept the instructor twice in a row. Another was worrying because he kept asking about the legality of modifications to firearms to make them Auto-fire capable,and whether gunsmiths were required to report requests made to perform those types of modifications...

    You know those awkward moments of silence? The kind where the hairs on the back of your neck stand up and your primal instincts come fully on-line? Yeah, it was that kind of moment.

    As far as I know he managed to pass both exams. Don't know if he succeeded in getting the licences though. I really hope he didn't.

    But anyway I digress...

    The problem with the psyche evaluation lies, in part, with certain presumptions we have under the law.

    One of which is the law presumes we are mentally competent.

    Imagine applying this standard to DUI. I would think that applying this kind of standard to the simple act of driving would mean that the police could pull us over at any point, for no reason, and demand that we prove we are sober.
    Such an approach would violate our due process rights.
    Meaning that the government must give us a hearing and present evidence to overcome the presumption that we are driving sober rather than making us prove we aren't drunk.

    Psyche evaluations are complicated and time consuming. And they would only establish a person is sane "today". Demanding that people submit to them before they being allowed to even buy a gun would effectively operate as a ban and be found unconstitutional.

    Again, I agree that keeping guns away from insane people is a good idea, but the problem is that the solutions I have seen tend to be unrealistic.
    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.


    • #47
      Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
      More specifically, and I think your legal expertise would come into play here, the doctor who would be making those determinations would immediately think about the burgeoning lawsuit if a firearm bought by someone who they deemed 'competent' was used in a crime. And with that in mind no one would be deemed 'competent', because a doctor isn't going to do anything that would potentially risk a lawsuit.

      That was one of the practical problems I was also concerned about.
      You are right. No dr. Would be willing to certify a sane person was sane for purposes of a gun purchase because of the risk that person might later become insane.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.


      • #48
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        I have at least some reservations about this one. I think it's wrong to be able to take a constitutional right on a misdemeanor (aka Domestic violence). All that requires is you have an argument with the wife, girlfriend, husband, etc., the police show up and poof! You can't own a gun. Ever again theoretically. That's pretty major for an argument.

        Any felony bars you from ownership almost automatically. That means even non-violent felonies do this along with ones having nothing to do with firearms. Again, this is rather extreme.

        One of the problems we get from this is we're getting a whole raft of convicts that are in prison simply for being in the presence of a firearm. In many cases, it isn't even theirs, it's simply present. Ammunition will do it too.
        So, it is possible and has happened where you get someone that committed a felony years before, has completed their full sentence and because they happen to be in a vehicle with someone (and it isn't their vehicle) and the police stop the car and find a gun, they go to prison for felon in possession of a firearm. The prosecutor will argue they had "constructive" possession. That is, they had theoretical access even if they didn't know the firearm was present.

        Claims of domestic violence or “domestic battery” can result in the loss of your guns or right to purchase them.
        Part of the problem with this is wives are often instructed by their divorce lawyers to seek orders of protection or claim battery by their husbands in order to secure an order throwing the husband out of the house.
        It is an area that is subject to great abuse by dishonest people looking to get an advantage in the divorce process.

        If the husband is charged with battery, often as a condition of his bail he must disclose and surrender all firearms in his control to the police.
        He then has to ask the court to give them back when the case is done and that is costly and time consuming.
        And The system doesn’t want to give him his guns back for fear of being blamed for something that happens later.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.


        Latest Topics