Veteran gun rights

My position is as stated. Like a lot of people here I feel that if you’re considered too dangerous to possess a firearm upon your release then you probably shouldn’t be getting released in the first place.

I know plenty of decent people that have gotten a DUI or two along the way and have paid the price for it as directed by the state. Good hard working people with substance abuse issues or some other life battle going on at the time.

Some of those same people have been straight and sober for over 30yrs with zero further interaction with LE, but even though they went on the straight and narrow, they’re still deprived of their rights long after their debt is paid. It’s not right and you can’t use any words to make it right.

DUI/OUI, even if it’s with injuries and rises to a felony, is still not a valid reason to deprive someone of a God given right after they’ve paid their debt. Upon release you are declared rehabilitated by the state and it’s no longer the states business what this person does, especially with Constitutionally protected rights. This isn’t a totalitarian state. Yet. I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand unless your common sense is blurred by personal emotion.

A crime having punishment does not make for a totalitarian state. If you take issue with the severity, say that, skip the hyperbole.

Your "straight and narrow" for 30 years people would have gotten all their DUI's well before any kind of strong stance was or would be taken on DUI. Which means they had to rack up more than "one or two" to have to answer yes on 21E. The magic 3rd DUI has been an instant felony since the 50s IIRC. At which point, the pity well is dry. They can regret the actions that led to them losing their rights, but the amount of times you have to drive drunk to get caught, and 3 times at that, is insane. They should be grateful that their regret is so easy to bear.

For someone heavily insinuating my common sense is blurred by personal emotion, you are feeding me a lot of word soup for trying to make someone's misdeeds less then what they are. Your issue is with the wording of 21E or penalties of DUI.

You think it shouldn't be permanent loss, and I can agree to a degree, if it's with the caveat it's 1st time, there were no injuries as a result, and you were barely over .08 as in .09. You had to start out sober (if you weren't that's an entirely different issue that maybe AA can solve) and you personally made decisions. To drink. Then to drive. You risked your rights to have a good time. I don't drink, and I no longer smoke weed, because regardless of whether or not I agree with the laws, I abide them.

If personal responsibility isn't a big thing for you, that's your prerogative. It's a tenet for me.
 
If personal responsibility isn't a big thing for you, that's your prerogative. It's a tenet for me.

There's a difference between being accountable for the crime you committed, vs one you didn't commit.

If you're advocating for punishing "gun crimes" by revoking RKBA, then that's one discussion. There are ways that that sort of accountability might make sense and be fairly implemented.

But revoking RKBA for something that has nothing to do with guns? Nope. And I'm a guy who takes a VERY hard line on DUI. I see no problem with lifetime revocation of DL, and even less problem with requiring DUI convicts to have a breathalyzer installed in their car.

But it makes no sense to me to mess with their gun rights on top of all that.
 
There's a difference between being accountable for the crime you committed, vs one you didn't commit.

If you're advocating for punishing "gun crimes" by revoking RKBA, then that's one discussion. There are ways that that sort of accountability might make sense and be fairly implemented.

But revoking RKBA for something that has nothing to do with guns? Nope. And I'm a guy who takes a VERY hard line on DUI. I see no problem with lifetime revocation of DL, and even less problem with requiring DUI convicts to have a breathalyzer installed in their car.

But it makes no sense to me to mess with their gun rights on top of all that.

Set aside DUI for a second. Drug charges should no longer affect RKBA? Assault and battery? Child Molestation? Stabbed somebody? None of these involve guns, but I know I'm not going to be the guy front and center defending pedo's. And yes - these all have nothing to do with DUI - but the issue was never DUI to begin with. It's 21E. Was 21E an issue in your opinion before MA upped to 2.5 years on 1st offense? Or is it this particular one has some home-felt repercussions? What about it need to change? Do we need to organize all the crimes into categories, where certain ones are bad enough where you lose RKBA for life? Or if it does not have to do with firearms, it's fine? This matters, because saying DUI should not result in loss of RKBA is virtue signaling at best if you aren't going to address the underlying reason why it currently results in loss of RKBA.
 
This matters, because saying DUI should not result in loss of RKBA is virtue signaling at best if you aren't going to address the underlying reason why it currently results in loss of RKBA.
You should really just stop trying to take peoples guns away for perceived crimes they haven’t committed and MYOB. Politicians are bad enough around this, you want to join them take your kool-aid stand somewhere else and cry about it with those faggots.
 
You should really just stop trying to take peoples guns away for perceived crimes they haven’t committed and MYOB. Politicians are bad enough around this, you want to join them take your kool-aid stand somewhere else and cry about it with those faggots.

and you repeating the same thing over and over does nothing to help your friends. There is no place for complaining in solutions.

I love my Kool-aid. You seem to be on the Flavor-aid train though.
 
Set aside DUI for a second. Drug charges should no longer affect RKBA? Assault and battery? Child Molestation? Stabbed somebody? None of these involve guns, but I know I'm not going to be the guy front and center defending pedo's. And yes - these all have nothing to do with DUI - but the issue was never DUI to begin with. It's 21E. Was 21E an issue in your opinion before MA upped to 2.5 years on 1st offense? Or is it this particular one has some home-felt repercussions? What about it need to change? Do we need to organize all the crimes into categories, where certain ones are bad enough where you lose RKBA for life? Or if it does not have to do with firearms, it's fine? This matters, because saying DUI should not result in loss of RKBA is virtue signaling at best if you aren't going to address the underlying reason why it currently results in loss of RKBA.

The punishment fits the crime.

How is it just that a crime that has nothing to do with guns should affect your gun-rights status? Remembering, always, that RKBA is a right, not a privilege.

I've got a problem with the federal PP definition, sure. I have no problem, as I indicated above, with throwing the book at DUIs. but I do not understand the legality of linking it to gun rights. I can see that it appeases the masses emotionally, but I have very little regard for the emotions of the masses when civil rights are at issue. I'm all too aware that the emotional masses will remove all sorts of civil rights, if they can.
 
The punishment fits the crime.

How is it just that a crime that has nothing to do with guns should affect your gun-rights status? Remembering, always, that RKBA is a right, not a privilege.

I've got a problem with the federal PP definition, sure. I have no problem, as I indicated above, with throwing the book at DUIs. but I do not understand the legality of linking it to gun rights. I can see that it appeases the masses emotionally, but I have very little regard for the emotions of the masses when civil rights are at issue. I'm all too aware that the emotional masses will remove all sorts of civil rights, if they can.

Rights are not an absolute. A polite society is an armed society. But you still need society. Some people can get back being a member of society. productive even. a person who never does in your version is treated the same as the person who makes it back. You need punitive punishment as the stick that goes with the carrot. We still haven't figured it out here. It's far from perfect. But your version, being absolute, leaves no room for improvement as you are putting it forward as being the ideal. As far as the legality, I'm as in the dark as you. As far as the reality of the faults of humanity, I'm far too in touch with that end of things.

Also, sorry for derailing the snot out of this thread.
 
Rights are not an absolute. A polite society is an armed society. But you still need society. Some people can get back being a member of society. productive even. a person who never does in your version is treated the same as the person who makes it back. You need punitive punishment as the stick that goes with the carrot. We still haven't figured it out here. It's far from perfect. But your version, being absolute, leaves no room for improvement as you are putting it forward as being the ideal. As far as the legality, I'm as in the dark as you. As far as the reality of the faults of humanity, I'm far too in touch with that end of things.

Also, sorry for derailing the snot out of this thread.

The right to defend your life is absolute.

One of the few things that every known law code in world history includes is the right to self-defense. That has meant different things in different places, but here it is linked (morally, politically, and judicially) with the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically firearms.

A LOT of NESers post this: if a man is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, he is too dangerous to be around his law-abiding compatriots. So? Throw him in jail, and in the process deprive him of ALL his constitutional rights in one fell swoop. Fine. But once he has served his sentence and paid his debt? Once he is deemed once again fit to be out in society?

Then yes. His right to defend his life is absolute. And so is the right of the rest of us to defend our lives from him, if need be.
 
agnotology: The study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

It is a right. It is absolute.

Though, abusing a right can have consequences. Causing a panic by yelling 'fire', for instance, can be punishable.
 
The right to defend your life is absolute.

One of the few things that every known law code in world history includes is the right to self-defense. That has meant different things in different places, but here it is linked (morally, politically, and judicially) with the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically firearms.

A LOT of NESers post this: if a man is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, he is too dangerous to be around his law-abiding compatriots. So? Throw him in jail, and in the process deprive him of ALL his constitutional rights in one fell swoop. Fine. But once he has served his sentence and paid his debt? Once he is deemed once again fit to be out in society?

Then yes. His right to defend his life is absolute. And so is the right of the rest of us to defend our lives from him, if need be.

Absolutely. That does not go away with loss of RKBA. You may have less tools at your disposal, but that right is absolute.

self defense still has criteria to make it justified. which the litany of "yeahbuts" would require it's own thread and a few more hours.

and even if you lost your 2A rights and defended yourself in a justified manner, you'd would only catch charges for the possession.... which in this state is probably just as bad as man-1 or man-2.
 
agnotology: The study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

It is a right. It is absolute.

Though, abusing a right can have consequences. Causing a panic by yelling 'fire', for instance, can be punishable.
Yes. which is why 1st amendment isn't considered "absolute". And you can find examples of every one of the rights having caveats and exceptions that if you engage in, will expose you and leave you culpable.
 
You may have less tools at your disposal, but that right is absolute.
That has meant different things in different places, but here it is linked (morally, politically, and judicially) with the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically firearms.

The opinions on this are legion: in the US, 2A is inextricably linked with self-defense.
 
Yes. which is the 1st amendment isn't considered "absolute". And you can find examples of every one of the rights having caveats and exceptions that if you engage in, will expose you and leave you culpable.

There may be consequences for abusing a right. Though, the individual could go on yelling 'fire' forever and ever. Or, conversely, engage in normal speech. The right itself is not removed. This is where the laws that produce consequences for abuse tend to be very narrow and specific (or should be).

To punish someone or a class of someones, without the subject having abused it, is de facto unconstitutional.
 
The opinions on this are legion: in the US, 2A is inextricably linked with self-defense.

by opinions, do you mean on the forum or legally rendered decisions, Like Heller or Bruen? If the former, to each their own. If the latter, it's not relevant to this, as we are discussing when, if any times are applicable where rights can be stripped.
There may be consequences for abusing a right. Though, the individual could go on yelling 'fire' forever and ever. Or, conversely, engage in normal speech. The right itself is not removed. This is where the laws that produce consequences for abuse tend to be very narrow and specific (or should be).

To punish someone, without the subject having abused it, is de facto unconstitutional.

Eventually, they might be gagged, as they would likely find themselves behind bars. The ability should not be construed as the right.

If that was the case, we would be able to quote case law on the matter, and this entire discussion moot. 21E wouldn't exist on a 4473.

punishments exist and are codified and mulled over so much because they inherently go against your rights. jail and prison against your ability to be free in your persons, to travel freely, fines against unreasonable search and seizure, etc etc.
 
by opinions, do you mean on the forum or legally rendered decisions, Like Heller or Bruen? If the former, to each their own. If the latter, it's not relevant to this, as we are discussing when, if any times are applicable where rights can be stripped.

Legally rendered, and I'm at a loss as to why you think that's not relevant.

If guns are linked to self-defense, and it's okay to strip away gun rights, then you're de facto stripping away self-defense... no?

So you're depriving a man of the most fundamental right there is, over an offense that has nothing to do with guns. That's pretty repugnant.
 
Eventually, they might be gagged, as they would likely find themselves behind bars. The ability should not be construed as the right.

And, as mentioned earlier, there may be consequences for abuse. Abuse could be, for instance, you interfering with someone else's rights. Not feelings. Rights.

If that was the case, we would be able to quote case law on the matter, and this entire discussion moot. 21E wouldn't exist on a 4473.

Yes. And perhaps it shouldn't exist. As with many things, particularly recently, coming out of the legislative and executive bodies. Such conflict may end up at the SC.
 
Legally rendered, and I'm at a loss as to why you think that's not relevant.

If guns are linked to self-defense, and it's okay to strip away gun rights, then you're de facto stripping away self-defense... no?

So you're depriving a man of the most fundamental right there is, over an offense that has nothing to do with guns. That's pretty repugnant.

It's not relevant because in those same decisions it is stated plainly 2A is not absolute. which is why we find ourselves having this thought experiment. And I have already established legal punishments categorically deprive rights. Which leads to the fundamental question we are arguing, if and when it is appropiate to suspend rights, and when to revoke rights

You can still defend your life, you don't have to roll over and accept death in this theoretical, but if you are a PP, you are going to be facing more charges as a result. because you are no longer allowed firearms.
Nothing to do with guns? huh? But the right is 'keep and bear arms". Weapons. Armor. The second amendment draws off the Magna Carta. Which is why the term "arms" is used instead of guns. Not sure if the word "gun" existed then. Half of it is weapons. A car is a weapon. Ruled lethal force. operating a lethal weapon in an irresponsible manner that could cause grievous bodily harm? Not as far as a stretch as you'd think.
 
(1) And, as mentioned earlier, there may be consequences for abuse. Abuse could be, for instance, you interfering with someone else's rights. Not feelings. Rights.



(2)Yes. And perhaps it shouldn't exist. As with many things, particularly recently, coming out of the legislative and executive bodies. Such conflict may end up at the SC.

(1) which is why we have our current judicial system, which while flawed, is the best one I've been introduced to so far. proof beyond a reasonable doubt, guaranteed legal representation, jury of your peers, sentencing carried out by what should be an unbiased third party.

(2) Perhaps. and if there is legal standing for it, we've had conservative SCOTUS majorities for at least half of the last 55 years a 4473 has been a thing. I don't see any 2A organization fighting for the rights of anyone but law abiding citizens.


Be back tomorrow afternoon. Sleep time for third shift duties.
 
if that is what you got out of this discussion, more power to you.
Listen, you can come here and play all the games you want. Your opinion isnt exactly the best and your peers here arent being swayed by it. So if thats "what I got out of it" I suspect that's your problem, not ours. Not like you're on a roll here changing peoples minds and comparing unrelated and poorly defined crimes to each other, etc.
 
Listen, you can come here and play all the games you want. Your opinion isnt exactly the best and your peers here arent being swayed by it. So if thats "what I got out of it" I suspect that's your problem, not ours. Not like you're on a roll here changing peoples minds and comparing unrelated and poorly defined crimes to each other, etc.

No, I just figured that if you weren't going to read the context in the slightest, no real point in giving a serious reply. Have a good day tho.
 
If you want to make a point I want to hear it.
You want the cliff notes version? f*** it, I can't sleep anyways and work is in 2 hours. Basic premise - is there a crime 'bad' enough to justify permanent loss of rkba, and in another but similar vein but a point another person was making, is that 'any crime that doesn't have to do with firearms shouldn't have any bearing on rkba.

Edit: on phone, will add more
 
You want the cliff notes version? f*** it, I can't sleep anyways and work is in 2 hours. Basic premise - is there a crime 'bad' enough to justify permanent loss of rkba, and in another but similar vein but a point another person was making, is that 'any crime that doesn't have to do with firearms shouldn't have any bearing on rkba.

Edit: on phone, will add more

There's probably a crime that would warrant it. The problem that we have now though is that something as simple as a DUI with no property damage or harm will lead to a lifetime loss of a major right in MA. I'd like to have garbage like that corrected before we start focusing on where the consensus is on where to eventually draw that line. It is hard to think of crimes that should result in lifetime DQ that should probably result in lifetime jail/confinement/hospital/etc instead.

Something else worth asking is the question of having these protections even needed? What good would it create? A bad guy is still getting that gun DQ or not. Reminds me a lot of the reasons states are dropping CCWs for constitutional carry, what the hell is even the point of a license outside a tax?
 
There's probably a crime that would warrant it. The problem that we have now though is that something as simple as a DUI with no property damage or harm will lead to a lifetime loss of a major right in MA. I'd like to have garbage like that corrected before we start focusing on where the consensus is on where to eventually draw that line. It is hard to think of crimes that should result in lifetime DQ that should probably result in lifetime jail/confinement/hospital/etc instead.

Something else worth asking is the question of having these protections even needed? What good would it create? A bad guy is still getting that gun DQ or not. Reminds me a lot of the reasons states are dropping CCWs for constitutional carry, what the hell is even the point of a license outside a tax?
Yes - and because the person I was having the discussion with was stuck on the DUI aspect of it, I tried shifting gears to the heart of the issue which is question 21E on the 4473 - which is what makes someone a PP as a result of the increase in max possible sentence for even first DUI in MA. Which made me ask the question of is there a line for them? Thus the vague series of crimes you quoted me on. I wasn't saying any of them were in some form or other equal to each other beyond under current legislation they would all make you a PP.

As for the what and who the protections serve? 4473 came to be under the 1968 gun control act, along with a set of other laws on the heels of the civil rights movement. That's an entirely different discussion though. Above and beyond a tax? It's another barrier to entry.

to continue, now, if my sleep deprived brain recalls, we are now at the philosophical and political heart of the argument, which is when can rights be put on hold, suspended, or forfeited entirely while still being able to function as a Constitutional Republic. Which also ties into the original part of the discussion this has to do with veteran's rights, although I've muddied the waters so much at this point I don't think any of the original discussion will continue.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom