New York passes bill to strip all guns from domestic abusers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ericgtr12, Apr 2, 2018.

  1. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #1
    So basically, those with a propensity for the worst kind of violence were allowed to carry guns and that right was being protected. Only in America, folks.

     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    Is there a process to rehabilitate and get these rights back? Sorry you can't own a gun the rest of your life because you were charged with aggravated harrassment 20 years ago?
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    True, but the same applies to voting and every other right.
     
  4. ericgtr12 thread starter macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #4
    A question for legislators I suppose but if you're asking me then no freaking way. If you beat your spouse senseless, even 20 years ago, you forfeit your right to ever carry guns for the rest of your life IMO.
     
  5. Papanate macrumors 6502

    Papanate

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #5

    You are spinning that right to make a weird point. There is a constitutional law that protects gun ownership - or I should say has been interpreted to protect ownership. Not specific groups of peoples ownership.

    I think this is a fantastic step in the right direction. The next should be people with a history of mental illness
    and/or history of violence combined with mental illness.
     
  6. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #6
    As long as this is properly adjudicated, then I have no problem with this.
     
  7. Papanate macrumors 6502

    Papanate

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #7

    How do you see this in a bad light? Unless we come up with a accountable test that proves
    a person has become non violent - there is no reason to trust that person with a gun or any kind of
    weapon. I've heard way too many stories of psycho husbands waiting 15 years to get revenge
    on a woman for having them arrested for domestic abuse.
     
  8. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #8
    Federal law (Lautenberg Amendment 1996) prevents anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from buying a firearm.

    The issue of what to do with existing firearms was left up to the states.

    Those under a permanent restraining order are also barred from purchase. TROs are left up to the states.
     
  9. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #9
    I didn’t read it, but if its retroactive then some cops are in trouble.
     
  10. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    This is a good thing. Can't you just say that?
     
  11. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #11
    Well, voting rights are denied to many convicts, so there is a precedent (for good or for bad).
     
  12. Papanate macrumors 6502

    Papanate

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #12

    Well that's a conundrum isn't it? My thoughts are that if a Policeman/woman are convicted of
    domestic violence - then #1 they should be terminated from the police force. It's not my or
    anyones problem that a convicted abuser can not get a job.
     
  13. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #13
    No.. it wasn't being protected.
    Having a propensity for violence is not the same as being convicted of a crime.
    Once convicted, that right is stripped. Federal law set that to a misdemeanor, which is a low standard for stripping a protected right. It usually takes a felony conviction before rights are stripped.
    The federal law left it up to the states to figure out how to deal with any exiting firearms.
    Feds don't exactly have the best track record at confiscating weapons. Someone usually dies when they get involved. (Trigger happy ATF agents)
     
  14. ericgtr12 thread starter macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #14
    This type of dismissal is what led to the Florida shooter killing 17 students at Parkland. When we see it, we need to act. The killer was made aware to police and FBI on several occasions and was never acted on.
     
  15. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #15
    It's not a dismissal, it's a matter of law.
    As for Parkland, the FBI and local law enforcement failed on followup.

    Let me guess... you think everyone on the "no fly" list should be barred from purchasing a firearm.
     
  16. rdrr macrumors 6502a

    rdrr

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Location:
    NH
    #16
    Don't know how to fall on this. If you get caught driving drunk you can get your license suspended, and then after treatment/punishment re-instated. However if you are a repeat offender you lose your right to drive permanently. Not sure I feel comfortable giving a domestic abuser his right to bear arms again, but then again the blanket rule will become a "the liberals are taking our guns!" rally cry.
     
  17. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    That's a felony, these are misdemeanor charges.
     
  18. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #18
    Just playing devil’s advocate....people plead to certain offenses based on the consequences at that moment. A plead then may have been the easiest way out. If they knew that 20 years from then the plea could strip them of a Constitutional aright they might have taken it to trial.

    I find it troubling that an offense 20 years later is categorized to strip a Constitutional Right. Maybe I don’t know enough about this. I’m just replying off the top of my head.
     
  19. rdrr macrumors 6502a

    rdrr

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Location:
    NH
    #19
    That seems like you are putting a little spin on that. We aren't talking about jay-walking or failure to obey a police officer (which will get you shot in CA). I think domestic abuse should be a felony, but if it is classified as a misdemeanor in NY don't you think that it is serious?

    Quoted from https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/go...sage-legislation-remove-guns-domestic-abusers

    "Previously, New York law prohibited the possession of firearms for individuals convicted of a felony or for a limited number of misdemeanor "serious" offenses. However, this excluded many misdemeanor offenses which nobody could deny are in fact serious. To ensure no domestic abuser retains the ability to possess a firearm despite being convicted of a disturbing crime, the legislation rightly bolsters the list of "serious" crimes, which, upon conviction, require the loss of a gun license and the surrender of all firearms.

    This legislation will also ensure individuals wanted for a felony or other serious offense are not able to obtain or renew a firearm license. Previously, despite being subject to an arrest warrant, an individual could still legally obtain a firearm license, all while being sought by the police. This change will make certain that the general public as well as the law enforcement who are actively seeking to arrest a wanted individual are not needlessly endangered by that individual obtaining new firearms."
     
  20. ericgtr12 thread starter macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #20
    I think that anyone who sets off a flag needs to be taken seriously, we can debate what benchmark dictates that flag but common sense tells us we do not want these people armed.
     
  21. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #21
    This isn't just about assault: "would strip guns from people convicted of misdemeanor counts of assault, menacing, criminal contempt, unlawful imprisonment, aggravated harassment"

    Criminal contempt should be really worrying when applied to the 2nd amendment.

    I don't mind wife beater getting their gun taken away for X years, but this seems pretty broad and with no limits.
     
  22. darksithpro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #22
    Some states let convicted felons vote again after they serve their time and have completed their parole, or probation. Some states such as California are using "ban-the-box" legislation, so convicted felons can actually get a decent job again. So my question is why is it fair to deny a person his, or her 2nd amendment right permanently for something that happened years ago, while a convicted felon gets a second chance at life after they get out of prison? How is that fair?
     
  23. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #23
    How much harm can an ex-felon do at the ballot box, compared to owing guns...


    And it's quite weird to hear you whining bout "fair" cos on every other topic it would be something along the lines of "atlas shrugged".
     
  24. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #24
  25. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    I don't think most reasonable people would want ex-felons barred from voting for life. There should be a cool down period for both.
     

Share This Page