Skip to main content

View Diary: Criminally Insane Man arrested with 36 guns (331 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No contradiction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    If they haven't been convicted of a crime, then they have their rights and will pass a background check.

    If they're so dangerous and violent they'd fail a background check, like having committed murder, keep them locked up.

    Those are still your two choices. Pick one. Anyone who's been defined by the state as violently mentally ill has had due process and should be locked up.

    That's how you eliminate the intersection of guns and the violently mentally ill.

    •  So then how is it that the guy in Connecticut was (7+ / 0-)

      let free and his guns were returned to him? He threatened to kill someone but hadn't been convicted of a crime. Is that due process?

      The easiest and most common sense solution is to take the guns.

      •  Did he commit an action? (0+ / 0-)

        Either he did or he didn't. If he didn't commit an action, if the threat was thoughtcrime only, and he's being releasesed as not a danger, then he gets to keep his guns. Because he has all of his rights. He's being released by the state, sounds like due process to me.

        If instead the threat was an action, then he should be charged with a crime and kept locked up if he's a danger to others. If he can't be trusted with a gun, he can't be trusted at all.  

        Do you really want a caste system, where dangerous people are set free, but not really free because they can't be trusted and must be constantly monitored?  You want to take the guns, but not charge him with any crime?

        But if you don't like the CT law, take it up with them, I don't live there.

        •  asdf (5+ / 0-)
          Do you really want a caste system, where dangerous people are set free, but not really free because they can't be trusted and must be constantly monitored?
          You mean like the parole system and sex offender registries?

          "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

          by Reepicheep on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:28:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How do you disarm a sex offender? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Reepicheep

            Would you release a rapist from prison if you thought he was very likely to rape again?  

            Would you release a murderer if you though he would kill again?  Or would you deny parole?

            If they can't be trusted, they shouldn't be released. It's that simple. Keep in jail anyone who can't be trusted to own a gun.  Safer than trying to forever police a black market in guns. How's the war on drugs working out for you?

            •  Jail anyone who can't be (4+ / 0-)

              trusted with a gun.  Well that is so much more sensible than requiring background checks at gun shows.

              "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

              by Reepicheep on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:51:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Or both. But again, war on drugs. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Reepicheep

                We can have background checks at gun shows AND not release violent murderers. Doesn't have to be either/or.

                But why do you think criminals wont get around background checks?  The black market trade in drugs is completely shut down, right?  Illegal drugs are impossible to find and insanely expensive yes?

                •  I guess you are right, Norm. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  earicicle

                  There is nothing any of us can possibly to to decrease the gun violence in our country.  We should take it as an unavoidable fact of modern life that lunatics will stockpile automatic weapons and then commit mass murder. That seems a small price to pay to guarantee that law abiding people can go hunting on the weekend.

                  "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                  by Reepicheep on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:57:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I offered up disarming the police. (0+ / 0-)

                    First of all automatic weapons are banned and if anyone is stockpiling them, they're buying through the black market where there are no background checks at all. So don't over react.

                    Now if you want to limit magazine sizes and semi-auto rifles, then the police should do the same and lead by example.  You do want to limit gun violence right?

                    Or are you also going to tell me the cops can't give up their big guns, because big guns are the only way to stop bad guys?

                    Why does a beat cop need a semi-auto weapon with a 17 round clip?  And don't tell me cops are responsible. I read the gun fail diaries.

                    •  This is a really clever argument (0+ / 0-)

                      More assertions based on legal theories pulled out of the ether.

                      If you want to understand the first thing about the regulating assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and the constitutionality of same, you might want to start here, Norm.

                      1927
                      1932

                      When you read the CD Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Heller II, please make a note when you encounter those two years and the courts discussion of the constitutionality of those laws. Two laws were upheld under intermediate scrutiny.

                      1927 (Michigan, 16 round limit)
                      1932 (DC, 12 round limit)

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:23:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Never claimed mag limits aren't constitutional (0+ / 0-)

                        I have no constitutional issue with magazine limits. But just because a law is legal, doesn't mean GOP legislators will pass it.

                        What I said is that the cops should lead by example, and give up large mags first. That would go a long way towards getting people in this country to follow suit.

                        Because maybe you've noticed, but gun laws are getting looser, not tighter. If you want to turn the tide, might want to consider my advise. Or stick with the status quo, your call.

            •  Sex offenders go to jail. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              earicicle, LilithGardener

              And in pretty much every state, once they are released they are subject to lifetime registration requirements.  Their names and the fact that they are sex offenders is public information.  

              In addition, most state laws place restrictions on where adjudicated sex offenders can live.  These restrictions can be very, very tight.  In fact, in Florida, there have been cases of local jurisdictions effectively barring sex offenders from living there.

              That's how sex offenders are "disarmed."

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:10:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  By preventing access to their "addiction" (0+ / 0-)

                That's a useful analogy, FogCityJohn.

                Have to admit that, as much as I don't like painting all gun offenders with a broad brush. It's so easy for corrupt police to manufacture gun possession/reason to search you, reason to search your vehicle, reason to search your home...

                When many gun possession charges are really the "petty crime" of gun violence. We need to develop the analogy of sex criminal restrictions for application to Domestic violence misdemeanors.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:27:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I think Pres Obama saw what you explain in (0+ / 0-)

          your comment is a problem and has poposed changes that solve it so that this person would not be allowed to get his guns back - ie, "thoughtcrime" - although in this case, he didn't just think it - he said it, articulated with specific examples of how he could kill someone.

          "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

          by We Shall Overcome on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 03:38:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  This is wrong (10+ / 0-)
      If they haven't been convicted of a crime, then they have their rights and will pass a background check.
      You don't have to be convicted of a crime to lose your gun rights. Lilith provided the law and 4 examples where that is not the case.

      This guy was found not guilty by reason of insanity. With the designation of insanity, he should be in the NICS database. But, thats useless if he's buying guns at places where background checks aren't required.

    •  FALSE - Norm, please stop repeating false claims (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      earicicle, tytalus, Miggles, WakeUpNeo

      about the threshold for losing the right to buy/sell/own guns.

      Federal law defines prohibited persons, as shown below. States have additional laws, some more strict than Federal law.

      Norm, you are very much mistaken about the requirement of a conviction as the threshold for losing gun rights. You could educate yourself, starting at the ATF, which has many useful pages explaining federal gun law.

      ATF - How to identify prohibited persons

      Identify Prohibited Persons

      The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

      These categories include any person:

          Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
          convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
          who is a fugitive from justice;
          who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
          who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
          who is an illegal alien;
          who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
          who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
          who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
          who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:56:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site