We are asked by the gun hugger crowd who insist on intruding their firearms everywhere in our public space to believe that they are safe, trustworthy, responsible.But that does not appear to be the case, which is why Gov. Dayton signed legislation that in Minnesota takes away the guns of domestic abusers, child abusers, and those with protective orders issued against them.
Courtesy of the NRA, in most states, gun rights trump the right to be safe from bad guys with guns, against whom a person has an order of protection, including allowing them to carry concealed weapons.
One such person, 32 year old Brandon J. Thompson, demonstrated how much of a scofflaw he is, by threatening speaker of the House John Boehner, second behind Joe Biden to the authority of the position of president of the United States. He admitted to making the threats when arrested by the FBI.
He has had 5 restraining orders against him since 2001.
It makes no sense that someone who has presented a sufficient threat that an order of protection has been issued even once is trusted to safely carry a concealed firearm, much less 5 of them. The existence of 5 Orders of Protection should strongly argue that this is a person who has a problem with issues like anger and intimidation.
So far, a few of the lefty echo chamber hacks are trying to portray Thompson as a lefty/'liberul' for having threatened Boehner (over the issue of cutting off unemployment benefits extensions). Thompson specifically threatened to shoot John Boehner with an assault rifle.
But there is nothing that I can identify about Thompson that indicates either that he was politically active, much less that he was liberal. Boehner has routinely upset and even antagonized many on the right, including over this issue, and given the predominance of conservatives in the part of Indiana where Thompson lives, it is more likely that to the extent he has any political orientation, he is conservative, given the racial makeup of the area, and that it has been strongly republican dating back to at least 1983.
As noted from USA Today's coverage:
“Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy but threats of violence have no place in our civil society,” said Joseph H. Hogsett, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, in a statement announcing the arrest. “People who are inclined to make them need to know that they violate the law and they will be aggressively pursued.”
I have a better idea; let's not have those who habitually threaten violence be allowed to be armed in the 1st place. Those who threaten people should never be allowed to possess a firearm of any kind, permanently, period. Threatening people should be an automatic disqualification for having a firearm --- which would distinctly thin out the number of people who currently both possess one or more firearms, and who too-frequently threaten others, including for disagreeing with them - as we saw during the same period with the threats made by gun-huggers towards a gun store owner for wanting to offer 'smart' guns for sale.
It's time for a new rule, nationwide one threat of violence or intimidation with a firearm -- no more firearm, EVER, much less a cc permit.
"It's time for a new rule" Or you could better know the rules. GCA '68 Makes any person who is the subject of a protective order a prohibited person from owning a firearm. Since protective orders rightly sidestep due process, this status is removed once the protective orders expire. You will note that in every story police searched his home, and did not turn up any firearms.
ReplyDeleteThe threats he made are serious, and will likely get him at least one felony conviction, and he will be barred for life from ever owning a firearm ever again.
As for Indiana CC permit, it does appear to be a misstep on their part that his permit was not seized or suspended when the protection orders were granted. Still permit or no, he could not legally own a gun, and if he is convicted he will no longer have a permit.
I'm familiar with the GCA '68, and with subsequent amendments to it. You improperly differentiate possession from ownership, btw.
DeleteIF YOU knew your law better, you would know that it was written in such a way that it is rarely if ever enforced, which is why other and better legislation has been necessary. Perhaps you should read the NYT article on gun rights routinely trumping the provisions of both state law and the GCA '68, which defines the scope of the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection
[relinquishing possession of firearms/orders for protection is]not the case in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the influence of the National Rifle Association and its allies.
Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter laws governing firearms and protective orders. Their argument is rooted in a grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that hand is more often than not holding a gun.
In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance of court orders.”
Protective orders do NOT sidestep due process, with the exception of ex parte orders, which are provisional pending a legal hearing in court which must take place in a very short period of time following the ex parte order.
And NO, I have not found in any, much less every, story where police searched his home and did not find a firearm. In a few of the stories, people interviewed identify him as a gun owner of multiple firearms.
Is it your contention that is the only place he is likely to have kept firearms? Because that is as badly flawed and ridiculous as the other claims in your comment.
People who are sufficiently violent and threatening that they have multiple orders of protection against them, they have demonstrated they are dangerous and should not own guns. They should not have a cc permit OR a gun. Permanently.