Going Gunless - Conscientious Objectors Registering as PPs in NICS

MaverickNH

MaverickNH

NES Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
8,389
Likes
8,022
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 8 / 0 / 0
papers.ssrn.com

Going Gunless

Firearm policy in the United States is subject to longstanding political gridlock. Up to now, most of the legal academic literature has focused on the constitu
papers.ssrn.com

“This Article inverts the problem and proposes a system for voluntary registration and certification of nonowners, those who want to waive or renounce their Second Amendment rights as a matter of personal conviction.”

You can’t make this sh*t up. First Red Flag laws, and now those who are conscientious objectors to guns registering as prohibited persons in NICS. The goal here is to promote voluntary PP status to make involuntary PP status more palatable. Hallmark will have a “Thank you for Red Flagging me!” section of cards...

But why keep your personal convictions held in an inaccessible government database? Just plant “This in a Gun-Free Home” sign on your front yard!
 
I'm all for them registering themselves as PP's, but this is really all just mental masturbation and not anything that will ever happen. If they wish to be PP's, they'll have to do it the old fashioned way, like commit a crime and get convicted. (Maybe they could possess an undocumented firearm then call the cops and get arrested... that would be ironic.)
 
My warped, deviant mind tells me that they are becoming PP's so that they can try to buy guns from FFL's...
In an attempt to succeed and get the FFL in trouble with Fed/State/local Authorities and have the shop shut down...
 
Some enlisted men actually had their wives and girlfriends Lautenberg them via fraudently-obtained restraining orders to get them kicked out out of the military after 9/11. Word was spread that the Lautenberg Amendment did not exempt military personnel and would be a quick and easy way to end your service and avoid deployment. PP under Lautenberg and back to civilian life.
 
308rifleman said:
Some enlisted men actually had their wives and girlfriends Lautenberg them via fraudently-obtained restraining orders to get them kicked out out of the military after 9/11. Word was spread that the Lautenberg Amendment did not exempt military personnel and would be a quick and easy way to end your service and avoid deployment. PP under Lautenberg and back to civilian life.
Click to expand...
enbloc said:
Cucks...
Click to expand...
 
enbloc said:
My warped, deviant mind tells me that they are becoming PP's so that they can try to buy guns from FFL's...
In an attempt to succeed and get the FFL in trouble with Fed/State/local Authorities and have the shop shut down...
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly. They will volunteer to be PP the go to every gun show and shop, unfortunately much like they do with underage adults and liquor stores/bars. This approach will cause the firearm dealers/shops to take even further precautions And likely open the door for extended wait times to start etc.

what firearm owners should be doing is trying getting legislation passed that if you volunteer for PP etc you should have a red strip on your drivers license or something. Providing secondary security for shop owners and FFLs
 
Most (male) conscientious observers are already registered because they have to register as c/o's with Selective Service.

Selective Service System > About > Alternative Service > Conscientious Objector

I'm not a fan of banning c/o's from owning guns. There's two kinds of c/o's here in the US. The first are people with firm Calvinist convictions like the Quakers or the Amish. Those people, mostly the Amish, live in rural areas and are strong participants in hunting. Go on any other regional gun forum, like say PAFOA or one of the ones for Ohio, and they'll talk about the Amish hunting and owning guns and bows, sometimes derisively because the Amish like to hunt in drives and occasionally ignore poaching laws. There's no reason to disarm these people because of their religious beliefs. That's just wrong.

The second type of c/o's are liberals. Those, I don't care about.
 
SERVICE AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR

Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the type assigned is determined by the individual’s specific beliefs. The person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned to alternative service - described below. The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

Conscientious objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of alternative service are jobs in:

conservation
caring for the very young or very old
education
health care
Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have served in the military, usually 24 months.

=====> Just what we need. More cucks in Education. If the people who want to participate in a renunciation of their 2A rights, they should be required to renounce (and be prohibited from) all of them, to include voting. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword gun.
 
Qwikdraw45 said:
=====> Just what we need. More cucks in Education. If the people who want to participate in a renunciation of their 2A rights, they should be required to renounce (and be prohibited from) all of them, to include voting. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword gun.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Conscientious objectors don't affirmatively "give up" their Second Amendment rights. A kid born as a Quaker or an Amish (Amling?) doesn't sign a paper after their acceptance into the faith rejecting their RKBA. Within the faith, there are people who believe in necessary self-defense and people who reject the concept outright, like for instance Quakers (who are still alive and well).

Even if we got rid of the Second Amendment, there would still be gun ownership. What the Second Amendment does is afford us a higher level of constitutional protection for the RKBA and the right to self-defense. There's only two or three countries in the world with a constitutional RKBA yet gun ownership exists in almost every country except for the extremely statist ones like PRC, NK, Japan, etc.

The Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu where you get to pick and choose which rights apply to the people you want them to apply to nor is it an all-or-nothing proposition. The Bill of Rights is a list of enumerated natural rights. Natural rights are ones that people cannot give up because the rights come from a divine source. Even if someone says "I hereby disavow my right to keep and bear arms", natural law still protects them if they act in self-defense. Natural law applies to all people.
 
C. Stockwell said:
Huh?

Conscientious objectors don't affirmatively "give up" their Second Amendment rights. A kid born as a Quaker or an Amish (Amling?) doesn't sign a paper after their acceptance into the faith rejecting their RKBA. Within the faith, there are people who believe in necessary self-defense and people who reject the concept outright, like for instance Quakers (who are still alive and well).

Even if we got rid of the Second Amendment, there would still be gun ownership. What the Second Amendment does is afford us a higher level of constitutional protection for the RKBA and the right to self-defense. There's only two or three countries in the world with a constitutional RKBA yet gun ownership exists in almost every country except for the extremely statist ones like PRC, NK, Japan, etc.

The Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu where you get to pick and choose which rights apply to the people you want them to apply to nor is it an all-or-nothing proposition. The Bill of Rights is a list of enumerated natural rights. Natural rights are ones that people cannot give up because the rights come from a divine source. Even if someone says "I hereby disavow my right to keep and bear arms", natural law still protects them if they act in self-defense. Natural law applies to all people.
Click to expand...
I should have split my reply. OK on rights for conscientious objectors. It's the first group that should give up all of their other rights while they are at it, since the 2nd protects the others. Not thrilled about C/O's getting to do education as an alternative, though, unless it for a true religious belief, since there are enough anti-2A types already teaching.
 
Qwikdraw45 said:
I should have split my reply. OK on rights for conscientious objectors. It's the first group that should give up all of their other rights while they are at it, since the 2nd protects the others. Not thrilled about C/O's getting to do education as an alternative, though, unless it for a true religious belief, since there are enough anti-2A types already teaching.
Click to expand...

Its all moot because the chances of a draft (the only situation where c/o's would be teaching) are very, very slim. Unless we suddenly go to war with PRC.
 
I'm sad there is no way for them to actually become voluntary felons. Then they could really see how awesome life is with a criminal record and no rights.
 

Similar threads

Up Next - Going after Police Trade-In guns.
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
MAGA99
MAGA99
Stupid is as stupid does…
Replies
17
Views
706
45Badger
45Badger
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
14
Views
381
powerman
powerman
BREAKING NEWS: Scores Killed, Hundreds Injured as Extremists Riot in Boston Area
Replies
16
Views
1K
Bfatz
Bfatz
Going back to carrying p320x
Replies
8
Views
325
IPSC_DRL
IPSC_DRL
Back
Top Bottom