Here is a thought for consideration - should military crimes and misconduct, and psychological discharges for that matter, be available to law enforcement for consideration in granting or denying gun permits?
The issue of hate group affiliation is another prickly one; some people who support and promote hate positions or belong to hate groups are quite violent; a case in point would be J.T. Ready in Arizona, who committed a mass shooting, including the execution shooting of a toddler in what has been categorized as a domestic violence murder / suicide. He had a history of espousing violence, and a history of troubled action, including violence in the military. The following, about J.T. Ready, neo-nazi, tea partier and Mormon brought into the faith by recalled former AZ majority leader rabid conservatives, does not sound like a peaceful, honest, law abiding citizien to me. Yet, Arizona is all about letting people like this not only acquire guns, but engage in possible domestic terrorism out in the desert with the arsenal, prior to his engaging in mass shootings and his suicide. How logical, reasonable or sensical is that?
from Wikipedia:
Now we hear that this (alleged) shooter, Wade Michael Page has a similar hisotory with white supremacy hate affiliations, and a similarly bad past military record. WHY was this man allowed to legally purchase a firearm to commit a mass shooting?
from MSNBC.com:
From the HuffPo:
On New Years Day, in what was termed the Skyway shootings, Barnes shot and wounded 4 people at a party, then went on the lam, fatally shooting a park ranger, and shooting, but only wounding, three other park rangers.
WHY do we allow these people to legally purchase firearms at all, much less arsenals of weapons? These are not good safety risks for firearms ownership, yet we prohibit our law enforcement from denying them access to legal weapons through may issue gun permitting.
This is stupid, this is DEADLY stupid. We are the victims not only of our failure of a gun culture, but of our stupidity in failing to regulate guns in a sane and sensible manner. And we are all the victims of the right wing politicians and the NRA for these policies.
The issue of hate group affiliation is another prickly one; some people who support and promote hate positions or belong to hate groups are quite violent; a case in point would be J.T. Ready in Arizona, who committed a mass shooting, including the execution shooting of a toddler in what has been categorized as a domestic violence murder / suicide. He had a history of espousing violence, and a history of troubled action, including violence in the military. The following, about J.T. Ready, neo-nazi, tea partier and Mormon brought into the faith by recalled former AZ majority leader rabid conservatives, does not sound like a peaceful, honest, law abiding citizien to me. Yet, Arizona is all about letting people like this not only acquire guns, but engage in possible domestic terrorism out in the desert with the arsenal, prior to his engaging in mass shootings and his suicide. How logical, reasonable or sensical is that?
from Wikipedia:
Court martial
Ready was twice court martialed during his service. The first resulted in a demotion and three months imprisonment, the second resulted in six months imprisonment and a Bad Conduct Discharge from the Corps in 1996.[8] Convictions in the court martials included theft, assault, failure to follow orders, and unauthorized absence.[9] The revelation of this history caused him to be removed as the master of ceremonies for a Mesa, Arizona Veterans' Day parade in 2006.[10]J.T. Ready had no problem acquiring an arsenal of weaponry despite this background. He should have, but right wingers love guys like him.
Now we hear that this (alleged) shooter, Wade Michael Page has a similar hisotory with white supremacy hate affiliations, and a similarly bad past military record. WHY was this man allowed to legally purchase a firearm to commit a mass shooting?
from MSNBC.com:
U.S. Army officials say Page was first stationed at Fort Still, then Fort Bliss and then Fort Bragg. He rose to the rank of sergeant while in the Army, but was given a dishonorable discharge in 1998, reduced in rank to a specialist for acts of misconduct.And back in January, we had another vet with a blemished service record who committed a mass shooting in Washington state. He also had, like J.T. Ready, a personal arsenal. He was involved in domestic abuse allegations, and suffered from possible Post Traumatic Stress syndrome which caused her to fear for her life and for the life of her child with Barnes.
From the HuffPo:
The mother of his toddler daughter sought a temporary restraining order against him, according to court documents.
She alleged that he got easily irritated, angry and depressed and kept an arsenal of weapons in his home. She wrote that she feared for the child's safety. Undated photos provided by police showed a shirtless, tattooed Barnes brandishing two large weapons.
The woman told authorities Barnes was suicidal and possibly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after deploying to Iraq in 2007-2008, and had once sent her a text message saying "I want to die."
In November 2011, a guardian ad litem recommended parenting and communication classes for both parents as well as a visitation schedule for Barnes until he completed evaluations for domestic violence and mental health and complied with treatment recommendations.
Maj. Chris Ophardt, an Army spokesman, told The News Tribune that Barnes had been stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, near Tacoma, and was released from the Army in November 2009 after two years and seven months on active duty after charges of driving under the influence and improperly transporting privately owned weapons.
On New Years Day, in what was termed the Skyway shootings, Barnes shot and wounded 4 people at a party, then went on the lam, fatally shooting a park ranger, and shooting, but only wounding, three other park rangers.
WHY do we allow these people to legally purchase firearms at all, much less arsenals of weapons? These are not good safety risks for firearms ownership, yet we prohibit our law enforcement from denying them access to legal weapons through may issue gun permitting.
This is stupid, this is DEADLY stupid. We are the victims not only of our failure of a gun culture, but of our stupidity in failing to regulate guns in a sane and sensible manner. And we are all the victims of the right wing politicians and the NRA for these policies.
Perhaps the bar is set too high right now. Instead of convictions for violent felonies (and certain domestic violence issues) and adjudicated mental illness, perhaps we should expand the list of factors that would disqualify a person from civil rights.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a break from centuries of legal precedent, but that was then, this is now, right?
So what factors should we add to the list?
I assume Joe that you are aware that rights are not absolute and unchanging, but rather somethig we come to by consensus that has been evolving and changing?
ReplyDeleteFor example our bill of rights was one of the starting points for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In that document, which the U.S. helped write, and affirmed, there is no equivalent to the 2nd amendment relating to lethal force or weapons, but rather there is a right to be secure and safe.
So, what you propose makes no sense, and once again is like so many of the conservative positions, on the wrong side of the direction of history.
There is no absolute right to lethal weapons, we have had something that worked better - may issue instead of shall issue. That allowed for a greater flexibility by law enforcement - the traditional authority for gun permits.
In the event of someone who abuses that authority, there are checks and balances, notably for example the position of county sheriff is pretty much always an elected office, so chantes are relatively easy to effect.
In the case of a local PD, those chiefs of PD are usually at will hires. If there are protests or law suits, as we saw with the apparent incompetence of the chief of PD in the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida - they can be ousted by the elected municipal officials very easily.
Your fears of horrible, rampant abuse of may issue just is not supported by examples or by any systemic authority problem.
So you propose a legally flawed solution that ignores the developments in civil rights since the 1700s - which your side so often tends to do in such arguments - and instead you embrace a very poor alternative that is less effective. I see no point in playing that game, what my co-blogger Laci might characterize with a Brit expression, 'playing at silly buggers'.
The reality is that the NRA sponsored gun laws don't work, when you have 75% or more of the mass shootings - and so many other shootings for that matter - taking place with legally purchased firearms.
When we have 80+ shootings every day, and seven times the rate of incidence of firearms violence. In Wisconsin, since the loosening of gun laws post the 2010 Republican 'trifecta', most crime continued to go down, as it had long before 2010 EXCEPT for firearm homicides. Studies in several of the larger municipalities linked those shootings to firearms acquired by domestic abusers. There was also a significant jump in non-fatal shootings.
So - more guns, more shootings, where before more guns, they were going down steadily. While in contrast there is NO causal relationship whatsoever for crime declines and guns - crime has gone down with fewer guns as often as with more firearms.
You propose and even more broken alterntive to the epic fail of your pro-gun legislation. SO NO, not a reasonable idea. But you and your confreres do need to come up with something better than this, because you've broken a system that worked pretty well before.
So, Joe, when you get a flat tire, instead of replacing the flat with a spare.....do you slash another tire, taking great pride in your process of determining which other tire (same side, opposite, or diagonal opposite) you choose?
ReplyDeleteBecause that seems to be the kind of thinking you are positing here.
Joe,
ReplyDeletePeople are stripped of certain rights, often improperly, sometimes not. This is hardly a valid argument for strictly protecting gun rights. For example, and turning your question back on you, we have centuries of legal precedent that says you can't be jailed without charge in the US, yet that's exactly what we did after 9/11. Should I assume you have the same venom for that injustice as you do for the FAR milder "injustice" of allowing the police to have a voice, and setting the bar at something SHORT of full commitment level psychosis? I mean, if we want to keep up the needless hyperbole, I suppose we can, but calling limiting access to free and unfettered gun ownership for the deeply mentally ill akin to jailing someone indefinetely without charge is both poppy-cock and, at least from YOUR standpoint, utter hypocrisy as it sure seems VERY likely you didn't oppose Gitmo. So, my question for you is, did you oppose gitmo? Do you now?
I have NO issue reconciling myself to the idea that access to firearms, while a right, is a limited right. It does NOT require the US to commit suicide as a people in order to provide it, it is NOT unlimited in it's reach. By contrast, the right to face your accuser, to a trial (or equivalent) IS an absolutel right in our country, one which George Bush openly violated - we're you as offended with that? If not, why not?
I get it Joe. In the analogy of the flat tire, rather than admitting the tire is flat, your solution is to slash all three of the remaining tires.
ReplyDeleteGotcha.
No matter what kind of denial you try to put on this, the shall issue gun permits are a disaster with the current results; and the outcomes aren't getting any better. Ditto the NRA pushed changes to give gun violent felons their gun rights back; another disaster, the way those criminals are re-offending violently.
Or is it your suggestion we have no accountability for failed gun laws from the right?
Care to show us where that abuse of power has EVER been a problem with may issue? Right wing paranoia is a terrible problem, isn't it?
So, no, then; neither of you can propose any objective criteria to use to determine which citizens will be allowed to use firearms to defend themselves inside their homes, and which will be prohibited from owning them.
ReplyDeleteWhen government power is exercised without criteria, that act might be said to be arbitrary, capricious, whimical. That's your solution. Okay, now we know where we all stand.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, Joe, you are careless and factually inaccurte in your premise.
ReplyDeleteWe have an excellent written criteria for who is and who is not permitted firearms, under may issue jurisdiction.
It prohibits for example people who have restraining orders against them for violence such as domestic violence, stalkers, there are excellently reasoned guides.
You have no basis for your claim of aprice or whim. You have apparently been unable to demonstrate where someone has been wrongly denied a firearm permit.
Just as the rules of firerm safety provide excellent guidelines as to when it is appropriate to shoot someone in defense, rather than wild shooting on impulse.
So, NO, we don't 'all know where we stand'; YOU in particular don't know and possibly willfully distort my position, Pen's position, and Laci's position.
You promote effectively unrestricted firearms to dangerous people, including especially dangerous versions including assault style weapons and large capacity magazines frequently used in mass shootings.
One of the worst groups the pro-gun crowd has advocated getting firearms are former felons, who reoffend many times more often than law abiding gun owners who have not committed felonies. Another group you do not adequately allow to be screened are the mentally ill - like Loughner who law enforcement knew, from the problems with the college. Two Law enforcement officers delivered the letter to Loughner and his parents from the college relating to his being dangerously mentally ill. That was not routine for college problem-related letters; and it reqauired TWO officers because of safety concerns back in 2010. But because of shall issue, law enforcement couldn't do anything about Loughner having firearms.
We've had 60 mass shootings, and 3 or more murder/suicides a week, since the mass shootings by Loughner in January 2011. Many of the people responsible had known mental illness or criminal backgrounds or had committed domestic abuse assaults or were stalkers who made dangerous threats.
YOU Joe, want all of those people not only to be free to get all the guns and ammo they want, but also body armor, assault weapons and expended magazines. This in spite of it being clear the harm that shall issue causes with the wrong people getting very lethal firearms.
At the same time, apparently you and other conservatives want to penalize legal voters and make voting more difficult, without any rational evidence THAT is abused.
What we have is a clear indication that you don't have a working relationship with facts, but you have a real ability to ignore them when your ideology and unfounded fears kick in.
That is usually what people mean by the term irrational behavior.
Joe, I removed a duplicate comment.
ReplyDeleteClearly, we do support an objective and more effective criteria for may issue.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to disagree with DG in part here, and with you in the main.
"Objective" standard normally means a ubiquitous, universal and usually unvarying standard. I do not believe such a standard is appropriate to expect or relevant. I DO understand the desire to make sure people are treated with an even hand, and that law enforcement isn't allowed to be capricious in their application of standards, but, you have a subjective standard you must pass when you take your driving test. The tester scores you pass/fail on numerous tasks, but the PERCEPTION of passing on a task is purely the testers.
In the same light, yes there is an objective standard for guilt (or lack thereof) in a crimincal case, 12 of your "peers" must be unanimous in their assent that you are guilty. However, who is your peer is subjective, what causes them to feel you are either guilty or NOT is subjective. If you chose to be tried by a judge, how that judge comes to his/her decision is subjective.
The same thing is true here (and in many other forms of governmental oversight from inspection of nuclear facilities to butcher shops) - a judge of some form, either a qualified police officer, or to better protect the public from capricious decision, an administrative law judge, should/would be provided evidence by the police and by the applicant of why (or why not) the person should be granted a license to carry. The judge (as in a criminal or civil case decision) would weigh the evidence and decide. IF the jurisdiction (state in this case) decided there were too many denials, they could frame new standards, but the RIGHT thing to do is NOT one-size fits all government, but instead to allow a competent, local official to excercise discretion, you know, common sense, in determining who is fit to carry and who isn't.
Sure, there may be a few unfair decisions, just like with butcher shops or restaurant inspections, but I think it's the height of folly to claim that by and large our butcher shops and nuclear plants are ILL regulated - otherwise we'd most certainly have a LOT of lysteria outbreaks (at a minimum) - yet we don't.
Gun buyers and owners deserve no more (and no less) protection in their purchases and choices to be armed than does a butcher to conduct his business. Subjective decision making goes on all the time in this country. We can establish general guidelines such as "the judge must determine if the person REASONABLY presents a threat to themselves or others", but that standard is obviously HIGHLY subjective and I cannot in good connscience call it otherwise. It's a standard, it's not objective, nor should it be, imho.
The Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, is a social contract, not a suicide pact, a phrase which has some interesting origins (quoting the wikipedia entry for the phrase):
ReplyDeletethe precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.
When we have 60 mass shootings, overwhelmingly with most of them being legally purchased, and overwhelmingly using expanded capacity magazines and assault rifles, there is somethign wrong with how we are using the 2nd Amendment -- or abusing it.
When we have such a large number of convicted criminals who get their gun rights back reoffending violently with those firearms, there is something wrong with how we implement civil rights.
Clearly we have some severe problems in terms of rates of suicide,homicide, murder/suicide, accidental shootings, law enforcement shootings, and of course the ever popular one-every-week-and-a-half average mass shootings, especially school and work place mass shootings.
It is perfectly legal and perfectly consistent with civil rights to have gun restrictions under the 2nd Amendment that work BETTER than this.
That means is it is perfectly legal to be much much much more restrictive in firearms purchase, registration, background check, and limits on kinds of weapons and numbers of weapons, and quantities of ammo, as well as related items like bullet proof vests and magazines.
The Constitution is very clear, and the founding fathers acted in a decisive way, to demonstrate that insurrection - the overthrow of our government -- is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In an era of air force carriers, long and medium range missles, stealth bombers and drones,nukes and cyber attacks, the notiont hat a hunting rifle or a handgun OF ANY KIND is going to be a realistic defense of any kind against a foreign invader is ludicrous.
In nearly every case, we have a pretty good idea who is and who is not going to be violent, or who is or is not dangerously mentally ill, or who is a domestic abuser risk, or a stalker, etc.
We let these people BUY weapons, collect arsenals, and shoot people --- legally buy them in most cases.
It's time to stop that from happening; and stopping it is perfectly consistent with what was originally intended under the constitution.
What we have now, that was NEVER intended, by anyone in the 18th century, or the 19th century.
That is a form of insanity that dates back to 1977. Time to end the insanity, and the profits that the special interests make every time there is a mass shooting. It is obscene as well as stupid.