LTCH Suspended: Administrative Law hearing at the ISP

[Titanium_Frost]

When they get caught it helps put them behind bars. While I wish we had constitutional carry here, if some of the posts on this forum don't convince you that there are some people who shouldn't carry a firearm, I don't know what will.

I hope it is more obvious to you that government has no power to keep people from taking up arms, it is only a matter of will.

 

[j706]

Apparently J706 does.

Re read the posts. All we do at my level is attempt to get the ball rolling. We are the ones out here dealing with some of these idiots. If you saw some of the ones that we see you would agree also.

 

[j706]

I'll ask you again, what does revoking their pink permission slip actually accomplish?

They still possess their firearms, correct?

They are still capable of breaking the law, correct?

They are free to walk the streets, correct?

Yes to all of the above.....unless they get convicted of their felony or felonys.

 

[TheReaper]

Re read the posts. All we do at my level is attempt to get the ball rolling. We are the ones out here dealing with some of these idiots. If you saw some of the ones that we see you would agree also.

No they wouldn't, these are the same people the think that felons, even serious violent felons, should be able to carry firearms!

 

[j706]

No they wouldn't, these are the same people the think that felons, even serious violent felons, should be able to carry firearms!

I sure hope not. No one likes to see anyone barred firearms ownership, possession or use. But there are some bigtime idiots out there that do really stupid things with guns.

 

[drillsgt]

I sure hope not. No one likes to see anyone barred firearms ownership, possession or use. But there are some bigtime idiots out there that do really stupid things with guns.

I agree, is that guy who tried to unload a shotgun and shot a hole in somebody's floor still able to carry a gun?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

No they wouldn't, these are the same people the think that felons, even serious violent felons, should be able to carry firearms!

If they have paid their debt to society by serving their sentence issued by a legitimate jury/judge, then they should be restored to former status as a freeman. If their crime is so heinous or violent so as not to warrant this restoration, maybe we should not have let them out of their punishment so easily.

 

[TheReaper]

I sure hope not. No one likes to see anyone barred firearms ownership, possession or use. But there are some bigtime idiots out there that do really stupid things with guns.

No, I'm serious, there are many on here that think that murders and rapists as well as people with mental illness shouldn't be prohibited from firearms!

 

[TheReaper]

If they have paid their debt to society by serving their sentence issued by a legitimate jury/judge, then they should be restored to former status as a freeman. If their crime is so heinous or violent so as not to warrant this restoration, maybe we should not have let them out of their punishment so easily.

LOL, it's people like you that will allow our 2nd amendment rights to be destroyed. Grow up

 

[churchmouse]

I sure hope not. No one likes to see anyone barred firearms ownership, possession or use. But there are some bigtime idiots out there that do really stupid things with guns.

You are so right and I know a lot of them. Not all are still walking the streets for a number of reasons but these idiots are the ones that make it hard on those of us that try and do it right.
I saw on the news tonight that a 3rd grader brought a loaded weapon to school more than once. From what I heard briefly, the parents gave it to the child. I have no real info but these things happen every day. I looked at my wife and she stated, "we do not stand a chance any more do we"
I can only nod in agreement.

 

[churchmouse]

LOL, it's people like you that will allow our 2nd amendment rights to be destroyed. Grow up

I can not say I totally agree with his entire statement except the part where we are letting them off too easily. On that I agree.

In agreeing with that I give merit to the first part as well. Catch 22.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

LOL, it's people like you that will allow our 2nd amendment rights to be destroyed. Grow up

With all due respect, it is you, who would rather deny the right of self-defense by Bills of Attainder, than I, who would much rather allow all freemen the use of arms.

Of course a former felon could use a firearm offensively or with bad intent.
The remedy to this is not to pre-emptively disarm an entire group of people, but rather, to eliminate the threats if and when they pop up.

Again - if their crime is that horrendous or repugnant - offenses against the person, murder, rape, your basic 'mala in se' types of things, I would gladly hang them from the tallest gallows the town can construct.

But putting people behind bars for violating any one of ten thousand pages' worth of 'mala prohibitum' diktats or regulations, such as the Lacey Wildlife Act, and then continuing to punish a person after they've repaid society by serving their punishment by not restoring their rights is contrary to rule-of-law, and is, in my opinion, very much a Bill of Attainder.

If you'd like to strengthen sentencing for crimes against the person, I'm all for that. If you'd like to deny former felons who have committed non-violent offenses and who have served their legitimate sentence the right to defend themselves, then I am in absolute disagreement.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Roland makes a great point. If they are walking the street they CAN get a gun, legal or not. If someone is not to be trusted with a weapon they should be killed or imprisoned.

 

[jbombelli]

As far as I am concerned, if someone is free to walk the streets with the rest of us, he is free to carry a firearm. I don't care about his past. I don't care where he's been, what he's done ... none of it. If he's free to walk the streets, he's free to own and carry weapons for his own defense. Period. I will *never* begrudge someone the right to keep and bear arms as long as he is free to live amongst us.

I will *never* convict someone for carrying or possessing a firearm. I'll convict them for robbing a bank or store, or discharging it within city limits, or pointing it at another person ... or any number of irresponsible/criminal things, but NOT the carrying or possession.

If you don't want people to have that right, then keep them locked up.

Otherwise, arm up and be prepared to deal with the a-holes of the world. Passing a law against someone carrying firearms only gives you a BS reason to lock them up when they haven't actually done anything wrong. And I won't be party to that.

 

[88GT]

When they get caught it helps put them behind bars.

This statement makes no sense. What is the "it" that helps put them behind bars? Revocation of the LTCH? I thought incarceration occurred for violation of IC, not because someone decided to play god and start dictating his standard of a "proper person."

While I wish we had constitutional carry here, if some of the posts on this forum don't convince you that there are some people who shouldn't carry a firearm, I don't know what will.

Dude, some of the posts on here should convince you that certain people ought not to be using the oxygen, but you don't see the rest of of us advocating for their demise.

You are apparently part of the group of people who have no compunction with telling others how to live their lives.

No they wouldn't, these are the same people the think that felons, even serious violent felons, should be able to carry firearms!

If they're safe enough to release into society, they're safe enough to trust with the full compliments of their rights.

 

[terrehautian]

I been thinking recently and the blanket of "your a felon, you can't own a firearm" seems too broad in the reality of things. If you get convicted of felony drug possession or some other non violent felony, you can't own a firearm. If you commit a crime with a fire arm, I see a reason not to be allowed to carry one, but it seems that there is felonies that shouldn't be determining your gun right status. Marijuana possession is a felony right now and if you are young and stupid. You could be done forever on gun rights. Seems rather silly to be in your 30's, not in college, but still being punished for something that (even though I hate to say it) is starting to be less a crime.

 

[churchmouse]

With all due respect, it is you, who would rather deny the right of self-defense by Bills of Attainder, than I, who would much rather allow all freemen the use of arms.

Of course a former felon could use a firearm offensively or with bad intent.
The remedy to this is not to pre-emptively disarm an entire group of people, but rather, to eliminate the threats if and when they pop up.

Again - if their crime is that horrendous or repugnant - offenses against the person, murder, rape, your basic 'mala in se' types of things, I would gladly hang them from the tallest gallows the town can construct.

But putting people behind bars for violating any one of ten thousand pages' worth of 'mala prohibitum' diktats or regulations, such as the Lacey Wildlife Act, and then continuing to punish a person after they've repaid society by serving their punishment by not restoring their rights is contrary to rule-of-law, and is, in my opinion, very much a Bill of Attainder.

If you'd like to strengthen sentencing for crimes against the person, I'm all for that. If you'd like to deny former felons who have committed non-violent offenses and who have served their legitimate sentence the right to defend themselves, then I am in absolute disagreement.

Now it all has merit in my mind.
Easy on the big words my friend....some will be confused.

 

[j706]

With the commision of some felonys come the common knowledge that you loose certain rights. My advice? Dont commit a felony. Pretty simple in my mind.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

With all due respect, it is you, who would rather deny the right of self-defense by Bills of Attainder, than I, who would much rather allow all freemen the use of arms.

Of course a former felon could use a firearm offensively or with bad intent.
The remedy to this is not to pre-emptively disarm an entire group of people, but rather, to eliminate the threats if and when they pop up.

Again - if their crime is that horrendous or repugnant - offenses against the person, murder, rape, your basic 'mala in se' types of things, I would gladly hang them from the tallest gallows the town can construct.

But putting people behind bars for violating any one of ten thousand pages' worth of 'mala prohibitum' diktats or regulations, such as the Lacey Wildlife Act, and then continuing to punish a person after they've repaid society by serving their punishment by not restoring their rights is contrary to rule-of-law, and is, in my opinion, very much a Bill of Attainder.

If you'd like to strengthen sentencing for crimes against the person, I'm all for that. If you'd like to deny former felons who have committed non-violent offenses and who have served their legitimate sentence the right to defend themselves, then I am in absolute disagreement.

Now it all has merit in my mind.
Easy on the big words my friend....some will be confused.

I saw Legally Blonde too.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

With the commision of some felonys come the common knowledge that you loose certain rights. My advice? Dont commit a felony. Pretty simple in my mind.

What was that quote about government ruling free men again? Oh yeah, it has to make them criminals first.

We are ALL just a pen stroke away from becoming felons in the eyes of the state.