House passes concealed reciprocity bill!

[RamRoddoc]

The fix is simple, strike out federal judge and insert non-prohibited citizen... All animals are equal some are more equal though.

Ҥ 926E. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal judges

“Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a Federal judge may carry a concealed firearm in any State if such judge is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.”.

And use the correct authorization, the people's 2nd Amendment.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I was the dumbass who carried concealed for years, without any background checks, thanks to Consitutional carry in Alaska.
Felt great not having to pay for the permission slip to exercise my rights.
And cops were not allowed to use as a probable cause for search seeing a pistol laying on the passenger seat next to me. By law.

My God! The carnage must have been Biblical! Is any one still alive in Alaska? Surely not! I mean just any citizen is allowed to exercise his 2nd Amendment RIGHT?!?!?! The horror!!!!!

 

[aFarewellToKings]

It wasn't a legal question, it was a fundamental philosophical question. You've given the correct legal answer of course. But think about the 'logic' of letting someone roam freely that society does NOT trust with a gun. About as effective as a "no guns allowed" sign or a paper 'restraining order'.
I say that knowing full way that many members here don't trust other law abiding citizens with a gun and are more than happy to infringe on the 2A and all all sorts of arbitrary requirements to make themselves "feel" better. Bubba with a Taurus and a bullet hole in the hood of his truck or Clarence with a HiPoint living in the hood... neither are "worthy" of the PRIVILEGE of bearing arms..... apparently.

Correct. My answer was, in one sense, a legal(istic) answer. But it was also, in a different sense, a philosophical answer: I get tired of hearing "he's already served his time" type answers. Whether it's 2A, probation, sex-offender list, etc. The penalty for a crime can have more than one element. Not only is that a part of the punishment, but it's also a (significant) part of the disincentive to commit the crime in the first place.

I hadn't really thought much beyond that, so you're right (again) about the 2A part of it. I think the same could be said about voting.

I like the idea of the extra penalties, especially when they're related to the nature of the crime. I also like the idea of a suspended sentence (in place of or in addition to an enforced sentence) - as long as it is enforced as such: violation of the conditions, when proved, trigger an automatic un-suspending of the sentence. (Of course, that, like many other cases, would require some form of "sense", which is usually antithetical to the legal system.)

 

[araomd]

Soooo.... Someone can't control his anger and shoots a guy. Victim is only wounded (not murder) so perp serves some time and gets out.

Since he has "paid his debt to society", he gets to have a gun again because of 2A? OK. Say he again shoots someone again and serves time again.

He has now twice shot people with a gun. Using the constitutional right plus "served his time" argument does he get to have a gun again?

I dunno. I am having trouble with someone "paid his debt to society" by being in jail when he has left a widow or children without a father and gets the same gun rights as everyone else.

 

[StuP]

Sadly there are so many repeat violent offenders there's no easy answer to how to prevent their crimes, we certainly haven't worked it out so far.

 

[Hayata]

Sadly there are so many repeat violent offenders there's no easy answer to how to prevent their crimes, we certainly haven't worked it out so far.

Cut their hands off. Problem solved.

 

[karlvv30]

Well.....when the 2a was written the penalty for murder was death. The penalty for horse thieving was death too.

 

[tv_racin_fan]

Also to stir the pot. How many people feel that a person that has done that should be allowed to walk out of a prison at all?

In my opinion if society believes he can not be allowed o possess a firearm then he needs to be locked up. IF he is allowed to walk the same streets as me he should be allowed to do so armed.

 

[spencer60]

Soooo.... Someone can't control his anger and shoots a guy. Victim is only wounded (not murder) so perp serves some time and gets out.

Since he has "paid his debt to society", he gets to have a gun again because of 2A? OK. Say he again shoots someone again and serves time again.

He has now twice shot people with a gun. Using the constitutional right plus "served his time" argument does he get to have a gun again?

I dunno. I am having trouble with someone "paid his debt to society" by being in jail when he has left a widow or children without a father and gets the same gun rights as everyone else.

You're right that it's incompatible with our current criminal 'justice' system. If you murder someone you should be in jail for the rest of your life, end of story. If you commit a violent crime, you should spend a decade or more in jail. That long gives people time to change. And you could argue that they might deserve a second chance.

The way I look at it is pretty simple though. When someone gets out of jail, they have two paths they can follow.

1) They have decided crime doesn't pay and become law abiding people. Obviously these people are no longer a threat, and should have all their rights restored.
2) They came out just as bad or worse when they went in. Whether they buy a gun legally or illegally, they will use it in an illegal manner, which is what will send them back to jail.

EIther way, prohibiting felons from owning guns is just as nonsensical as any other type of gun control. The only people who will follow them are the ones we don't have to worry about.

 

[Bagman]

Never get the votes to pass in the Senate.