Who should be prevented from buying a firearm?

[JimmyR]

OK, so lets have a fun little debate. According to the IC, certain people are not considered "proper persons" for buying a firearm. Is there a group that you would add to the list of prohibited groups? What about a group that isn't mentioned, but should not be able to buy a gun. See the IC below for the complete list:


IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44.1-3-1 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-78), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application;
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(11) has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;
(12) has not been the subject of a:
(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or
(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7; or
(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:
(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;
(B) guilty but mentally ill; or
(C) incompetent to stand trial.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So much fail here! First, there is no asterisk after the Second Amendment. Second, as we watch the news occasionally, it is readily apparent that we all can be very easily criminalized into 'improper persons'. It started with felons, then added select misdemeanants. Further, more activities are regulated and'or criminalized every year. It does not take a particularly vivid imagination to see the threshold continue to move through the mass of formerly upstanding citizens who no longer are so (or no longer will be so) as they are progressively redefined as criminals without any change in their behavior.

At the end of the day, no one should be denied any rights or relegated to second-class citizenship if they are free citizens. If they are too dangerous to be trusted with all their rights, they should be either incarcerated or executed.

 

[netsecurity]

At the end of the day, no one should be denied any rights or relegated to second-class citizenship if they are free citizens.

Hahaha. Well, then we shall simply label them as not free citizens, since they don't,get the 2A protection, but let's not lock them up for life just because they are mental okay? Lot's of people have Bipolar Disorder, and should never be allowed to touch a gun, period. Then we have people with ADD, and Down's Syndrome, and the list goes on.

I believe that the "well refulated militia" only includes those who would be handed a gun by a militia leader. But even if the 2A lacked the preamble, there really is no way to allow everyone access to guns, it is just absurd. We don't let some people drive, for example, and that is a good thing.

 

[No Lot Lizards]

Nobody.

 

[JimmyR]

@netsecurity: notice that for someone to be considered an improper person in the eyes of the law for mental health reasons, it requires a regular or 90 day commitment- something that is actually very very rare, from my experience. The more common Emergency Detention Order is not included as a barrier to gun ownership.

 

[JimmyR]

Nobody.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that there should be no changes to the IC in question, which was the original question, or are you agreeing with IndyDave that no-one should be barred from firearm ownership?

 

[netsecurity]

@netsecurity: notice that for someone to be considered an improper person in the eyes of the law for mental health reasons, it requires a regular or 90 day commitment- something that is actually very very rare, from my experience. The more common Emergency Detention Order is not included as a barrier to gun ownership.

Yea, you're right. That's how Jared Laughner got guns. They need to fix that.

 

[No Lot Lizards]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that there should be no changes to the IC in question, which was the original question, or are you agreeing with IndyDave that no-one should be barred from firearm ownership?

Nobody should be barred.

 

[netsecurity]

Nobody should be barred.

So you would let a four hear old carry? How about a guy that shot his neighbor because his music was too loud, you'd let him carry again, knowing he was prone to shoot over frivolous daily incidents?

Society would crumble into anarchy, and many good people would die if everyone could have guns. Enforcing the law would be nearly impossible, and feuds would become the new justice system. Is this what you think is best, or have you not thought this through well yet?

 

[No Lot Lizards]

So you would let a four hear old carry? How about a guy that shot his neighbor because his music was too loud, you'd let him carry again, knowing he was prone to shoot over frivolous daily incidents?

Society would crumble into anarchy, and many good people would die if everyone could have guns. Enforcing the law would be nearly impossible, and feuds would become the new justice system. Is this what you think is best, or have you not thought this through well yet?

If a guy shoots his neighbor over loud music, is a ban going to stop him from acquiring a gun? Or have you not thought this through yet?

 

[Bunnykid68]

If a guy shoots his neighbor over loud music, is a ban going to stop him from acquiring a gun? Or have you not thought this through yet?

Not to mention he would probably be locked up and no longer a free person.

Bipolar and ADD as reasons for someone not to own a gun are completely absurd.

 

[jeremy]

So you would let a four hear old carry?

Sure, why not. My brother and I were turned loose with a .22LR not much older than that...

How about a guy that shot his neighbor because his music was too loud, you'd let him carry again, knowing he was prone to shoot over frivolous daily incidents?

Punishment...
Enforce the Penalties.
Prisons should be such a horrible experience that it leaves a person traumatized...

Society would crumble into anarchy, and many good people would die if everyone could have guns. Enforcing the law would be nearly impossible, and feuds would become the new justice system. Is this what you think is best, or have you not thought this through well yet?

 

[jeremy]

Hahaha. Well, then we shall simply label them as not free citizens, since they don't,get the 2A protection, but let's not lock them up for life just because they are mental okay? Lot's of people have Bipolar Disorder, and should never be allowed to touch a gun, period. Then we have people with ADD, and Down's Syndrome, and the list goes on.

I believe that the "well refulated militia" only includes those who would be handed a gun by a militia leader. But even if the 2A lacked the preamble, there really is no way to allow everyone access to guns, it is just absurd. We don't let some people drive, for example, and that is a good thing.

By your line of thinking 75% of the Military should not have Weapons...

 

[Pitmaster]

The 2A is perfectly clear. I will submit that times have change and the maturity level of teenagers has deteriorated enough over time that I can agree that you need to be 18 to purchase a firearm. Otherwise, there should not be restricts. I hear the mental illness and developmentally disable argument all the time. It seems like people think that every one of these people are going to run out, buy guns, and shoot someone. I doubt it. The reality is that most of these people won't. Sure a small minority will. But that happens anyway.

Everyone has the right to self defense, period. There are no exclusions.

 

[Double T]

The only people who should have negated firearms rights are felons who used a weapon in the commiting of their crime.

I would also like to add that any other free man should be able to exercise these rights as they have not used them for evil.

 

[KLB]

Hahaha. Well, then we shall simply label them as not free citizens, since they don't,get the 2A protection, but let's not lock them up for life just because they are mental okay? Lot's of people have Bipolar Disorder, and should never be allowed to touch a gun, period. Then we have people with ADD, and Down's Syndrome, and the list goes on.

I believe that the "well refulated militia" only includes those who would be handed a gun by a militia leader. But even if the 2A lacked the preamble, there really is no way to allow everyone access to guns, it is just absurd. We don't let some people drive, for example, and that is a good thing.

What does ADD have to do with owning a gun?

I know people with BiPolar disorder and guns. Other than someone trying to kill themselves with a gun, what do you think depression is going to do to someone?

And Down's syndrome? Really?

 

[findingZzero]

Folks with no impulse control.
How to tell? Hand them a gun and see how long it takes for them to kill someone. Then bar them for life. Or, you could invest in my Neural Resonance Fourier Synapse Potentiometer (NRFSP).

 

[CarmelHP]

No one should be barred. When there were no such limits, murder rates were lower. Prohibitions merely affect those inclined to follow them, not those with an evil intent. If someone is too dangerous to have a gun then they are too dangerous to have kitchen knives and baseball bats and gasoline. Those are the people you execute or lock up forever.

 

[dhnorris]

the constitution of Indiana says it very well


Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State

I see no exceptions or time limits or training courses or anything else in there.

 

[jeremy]

The 2A is perfectly clear. I will submit that times have change and the maturity level of teenagers has deteriorated enough over time that I can agree that you need to be 18 to purchase a firearm. Otherwise, there should not be restricts. I hear the mental illness and developmentally disable argument all the time. It seems like people think that every one of these people are going to run out, buy guns, and shoot someone. I doubt it. The reality is that most of these people won't. Sure a small minority will. But that happens anyway.

Everyone has the right to self defense, period. There are no exclusions.

Unless they are under 18 you mean...

The only people who should have negated firearms rights are felons who used a weapon in the commiting of their crime.

I would also like to add that any other free man should be able to exercise these rights as they have not used them for evil.

If they are still dangerous to Society, why were they released?!

Folks with no impulse control.
How to tell? Hand them a gun and see how long it takes for them to kill someone.

By bar them for life, you mean execute them?!