Hmm whats your take on this? Indiana needs more gun laws huh?

[Joe Williams]

Well, there's a gun store I'll never darken the doors of. Which Founding Father told someone "I hope you wear the shackles lightly..."

I'll have to find that.

Just a businessman trying to make money by getting laws passed to force customers in his door.

 

[Shadowbeach]

.

 

[tskin]

The only gun law needed anywhere should say "Criminals can't have guns. Everyone else can." I know for a fact that felons can not have guns legally, therefore Indiana has the best gun laws around... Period!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well, there's a gun store I'll never darken the doors of. Which Founding Father told someone "I hope you wear the shackles lightly..."

I'll have to find that.

That would be Samuel Adams, and one of my favorite of his quotes:

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Wait...



Now, I'm a noob to the gun world, and I've only been to a handful of gun shows over the years, but I thought for sure that background checks were still required at gun shows unless the buyer carries a LTCH??? Am I wrong? Who's misinformed here, myself or Mr. Helmke?

NICS checks are required by any 01FFL for any sale from his/her inventory, whether at a gun show or at their store.

This is Helmke's jab at the fictional "gun show loophole", which recognizes the right of a citizen to sell his personal, private property to another citizen. It would be analogous to, if I wanted to sell you a hammer, we would have to do so through a hardware store, or a car, through a car dealer, though both would have to be federally licensed and would charge us a fee to complete a sale we should be able to do on our own. Helmke does not want you to be able to sell a gun to your neighbor, however, without it being federally tracked.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

The only gun law needed anywhere should say "Criminals can't have guns. Everyone else can." I know for a fact that felons can not have guns legally, therefore Indiana has the best gun laws around... Period!

I have to disagree. How about, "The use of a firearm in the commission of an otherwise unlawful, violent act shall increase the original crime by one class designation." (that is, a class D misdemeanor becomes a class C; a class A misdemeanor becomes a class D felony, etc.)

This would permit anyone to lawfully own and use a firearm for lawful purposes. Why? Consider, for a moment: a person commits a violent crime with a gun at age 18. He is caught, tried, and convicted, spending three years of a six year sentence in prison, being released at 21. Just before he got caught, he gets his girlfriend pregnant, and he decides on seeing his child's face for the first time that he owes that baby more than a criminal for a father. He straightens up his act and on his release, comes out, gets a job and becomes a model citizen. Only problem is that he still has people who knew him before, and may have reason to want to harm him. He cannot defend his home or family with a gun because he made a stupid, bad decision as an immature adult. I think he should be allowed to own and use a gun as needed, so long as his actions are lawful.

Some here agree with me, some do not. I won't likely convince anyone. If someone reads this and does change his/her mind, I will be pleased, but if not, I will not be surprised.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DaveD]

I have to disagree. How about, "The use of a firearm in the commission of an otherwise unlawful, violent act shall increase the original crime by one class designation." (that is, a class D misdemeanor becomes a class C; a class A misdemeanor becomes a class D felony, etc.)

This would permit anyone to lawfully own and use a firearm for lawful purposes. Why? Consider, for a moment: a person commits a violent crime with a gun at age 18. He is caught, tried, and convicted, spending three years of a six year sentence in prison, being released at 21. Just before he got caught, he gets his girlfriend pregnant, and he decides on seeing his child's face for the first time that he owes that baby more than a criminal for a father. He straightens up his act and on his release, comes out, gets a job and becomes a model citizen. Only problem is that he still has people who knew him before, and may have reason to want to harm him. He cannot defend his home or family with a gun because he made a stupid, bad decision as an immature adult. I think he should be allowed to own and use a gun as needed, so long as his actions are lawful.

Some here agree with me, some do not. I won't likely convince anyone. If someone reads this and does change his/her mind, I will be pleased, but if not, I will not be surprised.

Blessings,
Bill

++1

 

[duffer426]

gun laws

The democrats will not be happy until they disarm all honest citizens, and make us victims to all the scum who will have access to illegal firearms. Sad. please join the nra.

 

[finity]

The democrats will not be happy until they disarm all honest citizens, and make us victims to all the scum who will have access to illegal firearms. Sad. please join the nra.

-1

Brady is a Republican & a conservative. So are a lot of others who have voted for or signed into law overly restrictive gun laws.

There are a lot of Democrats & liberals who support gun-rights.

On topic: I think the only law Indiana needs to change, of the top of my head, is its requirement for a LTCH.

 

[Bill of Rights]

-1

Brady is a Republican & a conservative. So are a lot of others who have voted for or signed into law overly restrictive gun laws.

There are a lot of Democrats & liberals who support gun-rights.

On topic: I think the only law Indiana needs to change, of the top of my head, is its requirement for a LTCH.

So you favor laws against carry in schools, gov't buildings, etc.? You favor laws saying that even with a federal tax stamp, one cannot own a short barrelled shotgun? You favor the situation where the info in our LTCH can be made public knowledge, such as the Hoosier Times does in Bloomington? You favor 01 FFLs having to have a state license?

You have a right to your opinion, of course; I think there are quite a few of our laws that need to be repealed.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

I have to disagree. How about, "The use of a firearm in the commission of an otherwise unlawful, violent act shall increase the original crime by one class designation." (that is, a class D misdemeanor becomes a class C; a class A misdemeanor becomes a class D felony, etc.)

This would permit anyone to lawfully own and use a firearm for lawful purposes. Why? Consider, for a moment: a person commits a violent crime with a gun at age 18. He is caught, tried, and convicted, spending three years of a six year sentence in prison, being released at 21. Just before he got caught, he gets his girlfriend pregnant, and he decides on seeing his child's face for the first time that he owes that baby more than a criminal for a father. He straightens up his act and on his release, comes out, gets a job and becomes a model citizen. Only problem is that he still has people who knew him before, and may have reason to want to harm him. He cannot defend his home or family with a gun because he made a stupid, bad decision as an immature adult. I think he should be allowed to own and use a gun as needed, so long as his actions are lawful.

Some here agree with me, some do not. I won't likely convince anyone. If someone reads this and does change his/her mind, I will be pleased, but if not, I will not be surprised.

Blessings,
Bill

QFT

While I believe laws forbidding felons from possessing guns are Constitutional (5th Amendment, liberty can be taken away via "due process," for which a felony conviction clearly applies), that doesn't mean I think they are right, at least not in all cases.

 

[jeremy]

I think every American should be able to own firearms, explosives, hell an M1 MBT (if you can afford it) regardless of age or where you live. Don't even get me started on due process and felonies.

 

[finity]

So you favor laws against carry in schools, gov't buildings, etc.? You favor laws saying that even with a federal tax stamp, one cannot own a short barrelled shotgun? You favor the situation where the info in our LTCH can be made public knowledge, such as the Hoosier Times does in Bloomington? You favor 01 FFLs having to have a state license?

You have a right to your opinion, of course; I think there are quite a few of our laws that need to be repealed.



Blessings,
Bill

Hey, I said "off the top of my head" didn't I?

You are of course completely right. I forgot about all the other crappy laws.

My bad.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

This would permit anyone to lawfully own and use a firearm for lawful purposes. Why? Consider, for a moment: a person commits a violent crime with a gun at age 18. He is caught, tried, and convicted, spending three years of a six year sentence in prison, being released at 21. Just before he got caught, he gets his girlfriend pregnant, and he decides on seeing his child's face for the first time that he owes that baby more than a criminal for a father. He straightens up his act and on his release, comes out, gets a job and becomes a model citizen. Only problem is that he still has people who knew him before, and may have reason to want to harm him. He cannot defend his home or family with a gun because he made a stupid, bad decision as an immature adult. I think he should be allowed to own and use a gun as needed, so long as his actions are lawful.

Some here agree with me, some do not. I won't likely convince anyone. If someone reads this and does change his/her mind, I will be pleased, but if not, I will not be surprised.

Blessings,
Bill

I agree and disagree agree that a felony should not be a automatic bar to owning a firearm. I have a friend who received 2 dui's within a few years of each other he is now branded as a felon and cannot posses a firearm. He hasn't gotten so much as a seatbelt ticket in 10 yrs since. Should he be allowed to own/carry guns imo yes. But then again you have the guy who has a rap sheet longer than my arm with various violent misd and felonys who just got out of prison 3 days ago on a armed robbery charge should he be allowed to own a firearm? A guy who did something stupid once or twice in the past should not be restricted a person who shows a pattern of violent behavior yes. Although imo the guy in question shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place but well....

While I believe laws forbidding felons from possessing guns are Constitutional (5th Amendment, liberty can be taken away via "due process," for which a felony conviction clearly applies), that doesn't mean I think they are right, at least not in all cases.

Yes it does say.they can be taken away via "due process" But "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
And some defintions.

"A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166."

Which banning all felons from owning firearms is in effect attaching a bill of attainder to a group of people.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree and disagree agree that a felony should not be a automatic bar to owning a firearm. I have a friend who received 2 dui's within a few years of each other he is now branded as a felon and cannot posses a firearm. He hasn't gotten so much as a seatbelt ticket in 10 yrs since. Should he be allowed to own/carry guns imo yes. But then again you have the guy who has a rap sheet longer than my arm with various violent misd and felonys who just got out of prison 3 days ago on a armed robbery charge should he be allowed to own a firearm? A guy who did something stupid once or twice in the past should not be restricted a person who shows a pattern of violent behavior yes. Although imo the guy in question shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place but well....



Yes it does say.they can be taken away via "due process" But "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
And some defintions.

"A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166."

Which banning all felons from owning firearms is in effect attaching a bill of attainder to a group of people.

You've hit my thoughts exactly. If the person is so unsafe that we cannot trust them in society with a firearm, then we cannot trust them in society, for "weapons" can be made of many things.
I don't care if someone just got out of prison for armed robbery; If he has a firearm and uses it to defend his own home when he is subsequently robbed, I think Castle Doctrine should still apply. His punishment was his time in prison, not the retribution of being made to see what it feels like to be a helpless victim of a criminal. Conversely, if this same released ex-con is found, say, having robbed a convenience store with a firearm after his release, I would agree with jacking up his charge by one "class" (I don't know that that's the correct term)-- Class C felony becomes a Class B, or Class B becomes a Class A. If it's already a Class A, automatic maximum sentence. If it's already that, make it a capital crime. As it is now, I know of a person who was sentenced in 1985 to 75 years in prison for murder. His crime consisted of tying a boot lace around his victim's throat and the other end to her wrists, behind her back, with mere inches between the knots at both, then throwing her still-struggling body into a trash dumpster. Somehow, this monster my jury sentenced will be out prior to the next presidential election- just over 1/3 of his sentence. He is presently in his mid-40s, having been in prison for over half his life. What do you bet that within a year after he's out, he's back in again? (I say a year to allow for time for him to be caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced again)

Despite this, if he is released, I don't have a problem with him being armed in his own defense. I have a problem with him being released in the first place. It's not like he needed a firearm to kill that young woman and leave her baby without a mother.... just a boot lace.

He was 21 (if I recall, maybe 22) when he committed his crime. I don't know if he was "law-abiding" before, vs. if he has a long "rap sheet". I don't know if he's really sorry for what he did or not. Based on what little contact I had with him 24 years ago, I would doubt it, but an awful lot can happen to someone in 24 years. In some cases, that can be a lifetime. He had his first chance back then. I'd give him one more, I think; a chance to prove that he can beat the odds against him. A chance to go out, get a job (he did construction before), and put himself back on the straight and narrow... or to get himself killed by his next prospective victim.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

Yes it does say.they can be taken away via "due process" But "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
And some defintions.

"A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166."

Which banning all felons from owning firearms is in effect attaching a bill of attainder to a group of people.

As it's done now, I agree. Passing a law that makes, after the fact, all folk who have already been convicted of felonies forever barred from owning firearms would certainly qualify as a bill of attainder by that definition. However, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is individually (or even automatically) making a prohibition on owning firearms, whether temporary or permanent, a part of the sentence, something like "ten years at hard labor, plus an additional ten years (or even, "for the rest of your natural life")forbidden to possess firearms." That would be, IMO, Constitutional. Not always right, IMO, but Constitutional. And, just as other aspects of a sentence can be commuted for various reasons, so could that aspect.