Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Riley lays out proposal to fight gun violence
The Posted & Currying, Charleston, SC ^ | Wednesday, September 27, 2006 | Posted & Currying reporterette DAVID SLADE

Posted on 09/27/2006 11:25:22 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com

In the wake of Charleston's 17th homicide, Mayor Joe Riley is calling for warrantless searches of offenders on probation, costly investments in the criminal justice system, and changes in state laws aimed at keeping gun-using criminals behind bars.Charleston Mayor Joe Riley is proposing a number of changes to state laws, including:

--Mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.

--Prohibiting those convicted of dealing drugs, or any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.

--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.

--Possession of a firearm during a drug offense, other than simple possession, would itself be an offense, with a mandatory five-year sentence.

--Allow probation officers to conduct warrantless searches.

--Increase the punishment for assault and battery with intent to kill to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years. There is currently no mandatory minimum.

--All offenders would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Currently, the 85 percent rule does not apply to all offenses.

(Excerpt) Read more at charleston.net ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2ndamendment; banglist; firearm; gun; guncontrol; ignorance; rkba; secondamendment; tyranny
Chuckton, SC Mayor-for-life Riley Dada joins Yankee gun-grab
1 posted on 09/27/2006 11:25:24 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com

Sounds like it applys to convicted felons. I don't have a problem with that. I don't want them voting either. Does this make me a Yankee gun grabber?

Flame away.


2 posted on 09/27/2006 11:27:40 AM PDT by poobear (Political Left, continually accusing their foes of what THEY themselves do every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: poobear

X2


3 posted on 09/27/2006 11:31:06 AM PDT by Ribeye (Protective head wear courtesy of "Reynolds Aluminum Products - Implant Suppression Division")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
For years we have been yelling: ARREST , PROSECUTE AND INCARCERATE THE CRIMINALS AND LEAVE THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS ALONE.

How does wanting to do that make the mayor a "yankee gun grabber"

It seems to me that the worst thing the mayor has done is not to have instigated these measures long ago!

4 posted on 09/27/2006 11:34:40 AM PDT by basil (Exercise your Second Amendment rights--buy another gun today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: poobear

Fine with me too. The framers of the 2nd Amendment did not envision it as giving convicted felons an unfettered right to keep and bear arms. Conviction of a crime is understood to subject the convict to punishment which involves loss of some or all of the Constitutional rights ordinarily possessed by citizens. As long as there is due process for each individual who is subjected to such punishment, there is no conflict with the Constitution. Law-abiding citizens, acting through their government and courts, have a right to rid their communities of free-roaming armed drug-dealing gangs.


5 posted on 09/27/2006 11:38:09 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
The mayor is duplicating many existing laws on the books concerning felons and firearms. The since item I disagree with is --Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.. The age of 18 is a legal adult in most every state. Under federal law, a person 18 years of age can legally purchase a long gun. The mayor proposes to make that a felony. He is way off the reservation on that one.
6 posted on 09/27/2006 11:40:42 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
The since single item I disagree with is
7 posted on 09/27/2006 11:42:00 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: poobear

Sounds pretty gun-grabby to me.

Riley's proposal

Charleston Mayor Joe Riley is proposing a number of changes to state laws, including:

--Mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.

--Prohibiting those convicted of dealing drugs, or any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.

--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.

--Possession of a firearm during a drug offense, other than simple possession, would itself be an offense, with a mandatory five-year sentence.

--Allow probation officers to conduct warrantless searches.

--Increase the punishment for assault and battery with intent to kill to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years. There is currently no mandatory minimum.

--All offenders would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Currently, the 85 percent rule does not apply to all offenses.


8 posted on 09/27/2006 11:42:30 AM PDT by 300magnum (We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
The framers of the 2nd Amendment did not envision it as giving convicted felons an unfettered right to keep and bear arms.

I disagree. The framers would have kept a person in prison if they were not fit to be set free in civil society. If they were fit to be free, they were also fit to keep and bear arms.

9 posted on 09/27/2006 11:45:10 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

I carried a gun while hunting or just target shooting since I was young. Would that have made me eligible for five years?I'd say this needs to be clarified.


10 posted on 09/27/2006 11:48:00 AM PDT by BBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BBell
I was hunting with a pellet gun until I was 16. At that point I switched to a bolt action .22LR when I was eligible to purchase the ammo. Now you have to wait until age 18 to purchase long gun ammo and age 21 for "handgun" ammo...even though many calibers work in long or handguns. The mayor would make felons of both of us.
11 posted on 09/27/2006 11:58:12 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com

DOesn't sound like a "gun grab" to me, it sounds like cracking down on crime.


12 posted on 09/27/2006 12:04:56 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com

The way I read this, it only applies to criminals. It looks like he's just trying to toughen up the laws where they're concerned. Unless I missed something. Why do you think he's a gun grabber?


13 posted on 09/27/2006 12:06:52 PM PDT by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com; Admin Moderator

Most of the mandatory minimums make perfect sense. But I don't get where he's coming from on the "younger than 21" thing, and there's no way that a warrantless search can be legal on somebody out on probation. That'll get smacked down in the courts faster than anything. I'm no Joe Riley fan by a long shot, but there's nothing wrong with at least part of what he's doing here.

BTW, there's that whole thing about changing the title of articles. Y'know.

}:-)4


14 posted on 09/27/2006 12:07:38 PM PDT by Moose4 (They caught me white and nerdy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com

"Yankee gun-grab" What kind of stupid title to the article is this? The title makes it sound like this Mayor wants to take guns away from law abiding people but the isn't the case at all. He wants to take them away from felons. Good for him.


15 posted on 09/27/2006 12:13:58 PM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.

Ever hear of 16-year-olds on dove hunts in the tri-county, Mayor? GRRR-r-r-r-r!
Joe Riley is a complete fool but, unfortunately, he seems to have the editorialists at the Post-Courier under his right arm...Peter Manigault call your office. Resurrect Frank "Ashley Cooper" Gilbraith!

16 posted on 09/27/2006 12:21:01 PM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
Disagree with most of 'em. Guns are not the problem - people are. Need to have a look at where the scum is coming from and why they're coming to the Holy City.

No mandatory sentence for carrying a gun while under 21: Kids carrying guns to hunt could be affected. How 'bout all kids using guns in crimes will be tried as adults, instead?
No warrant less searches, except maybe in public housing (the landlord gets to have a look around at HIS property).
The NRA likes mandatory sentencing for crimes involving firearms and could provide Rilely with some guidelines.
17 posted on 09/27/2006 12:30:20 PM PDT by Little Ray (If you want to be a martyr, we want to martyr you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
The framers of the 2nd Amendment did not envision it as giving convicted felons an unfettered right to keep and bear arms.

I disagree. The framers would have kept a person in prison if they were not fit to be set free in civil society. If they were fit to be free, they were also fit to keep and bear arms.

Too bad we can't return to the framers way of thinking and the individual liberty they enjoyed.

18 posted on 09/27/2006 12:31:05 PM PDT by FroedrickVonFreepenstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
--Allow probation officers to conduct warrantless searches.

the SC will kill this one.

19 posted on 09/27/2006 12:31:44 PM PDT by Centurion2000 ("Be polite and courteous, but have a plan to KILL everybody you meet.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

That a popular modern assertion, but I've never seen any evidence supporting it. Few jurisdictions even HAD prisons back then.


20 posted on 09/27/2006 12:34:51 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
Mayor Joe Riley is calling for warrantless searches of offenders on probation....

Probation officers can barge into any felon's home without a warrant because felons give permission as a condition of release. At least that's how it works in Alaska.

21 posted on 09/27/2006 12:45:35 PM PDT by AlaskaErik (Everyone should have a subject they are ignorant about. I choose professional corporate sports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FroedrickVonFreepenstein

Who says the framers thought that way? It's nothing but an urban myth that they intended on keeping everybody who wasn't fit to be armed in a prison. WHAT prisons? The ones every jurisdiction was building and staffing with the combined funds from the colossal federal, state, and local income taxes that were being collected from citizens of the late 18th century United States?

They had common sense back then, and everybody understood that convicted criminals and insane/retarded people were not to be given the same freedoms as normal people.


22 posted on 09/27/2006 12:58:14 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde

So much for 'shall not be infringed.'


23 posted on 09/27/2006 1:04:46 PM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Moose4; Admin Moderator

Yeah, you're right, I hurried. But I'm so damn hacked-off at the local National Reasonable-regulation Ass and the local Grass Roots guys for sitting on their keyboards and letting these petty tyrants get away with murder (in the final analysis).


24 posted on 09/27/2006 1:14:43 PM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: poobear

Thing about the way the clintonistas defined assault weapon.

All they need to do is invent the phrase "crime gun" is anything which shoots a bullet and instantly all those with guns are criminals subject to mandatory sentences.

Defend yourself and MERE POSESSION in the eyes of some (and most are based repeated court experiences) incompetent prosecutor and second amendment is defacto gone.


25 posted on 09/27/2006 1:32:45 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

Problem is that most rights are restored to felons once your parole/probation is over in most states, firearms ownership is the only one that doesn't. Also, why should someone that is convicted of non-violent crimes, like Martha Stewart, loose their right?


26 posted on 09/27/2006 1:51:10 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

I think what the poster meant, at least as I interpreted it, was that once you've done your time and paid your "debt to society" you are once again a free citizen with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities attending such status. Certainly the framers didn't intend to have some star chamber decide the fitness of each person and indefinately confine those deemed unfit. I believe you've misunderstood the comments.


27 posted on 09/27/2006 1:54:38 PM PDT by FroedrickVonFreepenstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier

Really? So you are ok with

--Prohibiting those convicted of ... any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.

Someone convicted of non-violent crimes, like Martha Stewart, should loose their right?

--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.

You ok with parents/grand parents not able to take their children/grand children hunting/shooting?


28 posted on 09/27/2006 1:57:00 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FroedrickVonFreepenstein; looscnnn

There was no assumption back then that "once you've paid your debt" by serving a prison term, you are automatically considered as having the same legal status as if you'd never committed the crime. They had common sense back then. They knew that people who have committed serious crimes are very likely to do so again, and they did not imagine that either the law or other individuals would deal with these people as if they had never committed a serious crimin. They also knew an insane or retarded person when they saw one and had no thought of allowing such persons to run around with guns.

The issue of how the definition of "felony" has morphed is more valid. Back then, things like having a gun when your "permit" for same had recently expired, certainly didn't constitute a felony.


29 posted on 09/27/2006 2:34:16 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn

Well, that last one is silly, kids should be allowed to have guns if their parents are ok with it, and 18-year olds are definitely old enough to make their own decision about guns.

The bit about criminals, though -- no, I don't care about their rights.

We always deprive convicted felons of rights by taking away their money, their vote, and their freedom. This would be one more good way to deprive them.


30 posted on 09/27/2006 3:54:39 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier

"We always deprive convicted felons of rights by taking away their money, their vote, and their freedom. This would be one more good way to deprive them."

Not always, but taking away of rights is also true of people that convict misdomeanors, but only when a criminal (felon or non) is in prison/jail. When they are out on parole/probation they can have money and limited freedom. So based on your statement, should non-felons also be included? You may not care about their rights now, but when you become one of them (through government passing a law or what ever reason).


31 posted on 09/27/2006 7:29:19 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

I have never heard about any of that back when the founding fathers were around, proof?


32 posted on 09/27/2006 7:32:03 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 2A Patriot; 2nd amendment mama; 4everontheRight; 77Jimmy; Abbeville Conservative; acf2906; ...
South Carolina Ping

Add me to the list. | Remove me from the list.
33 posted on 09/27/2006 8:18:50 PM PDT by SC Swamp Fox (Join our Folding@Home team (Team# 36120) keyword: folding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

long guns wouldn't be included in this law. Only hand guns and rifles that are already illegal.


34 posted on 09/27/2006 8:21:38 PM PDT by antiunion person (Prejudice??? WHO ME?????????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com

Riley takes delight in being the biggest liberal in the state.


35 posted on 09/27/2006 8:33:20 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (The man who said "there's no such thing as a stupid question" has never talked to Helen Thomas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiunion person
long guns wouldn't be included in this law. Only hand guns and rifles that are already illegal.

If that is the case, then the whole thing is grandstanding. Federal law already requires the purchaser of a handgun or handgun ammo to be 21. What federal law doesn't do is infringe on the possession of a handgun by persons under 21. You can't purchase but it is legal to possess under federal law. Illegal rifles applies to everyone. There are special cases of short barreled rifles that are technically illegal unless you get BATFE approval and pay the $200 NFA tax.

If this passes, you won't be able to be an armed police officer until you are over age 21.

36 posted on 09/27/2006 8:38:48 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn

No, not non-felons. There's a reason we classify some crimes as being more serious than others.


37 posted on 09/27/2006 11:49:13 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: poobear

You and I read the same article, I'm not sure what the other fellow read. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals seems to be the theme here.


38 posted on 09/28/2006 4:25:35 AM PDT by Recon Dad (Marine Spec Ops Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
item I disagree with is --Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense..

That one is 'troubling'.

You Low-Country guys can correct me if I'm wrong, being the hillbilly Up-Stater that I am, but it's my understanding that Charleston leans rather hard to the left anyway, and yankee gun grab is an apt description of this Giulianiesque move to fight crime.

--Mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.

What is 'illegal' firearm possession? Is there a possibility that law abiding citizens will become 'criminals' under this law?

--Prohibiting those convicted of dealing drugs, or any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail, from possessing firearms.

The any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail has a couple of troubling items. 1) a person sentenced to 1 year for tax evasion, or similar crimes, should not be stripped of Second Amendment right, and 2) it says 'carrying a punishment of one year or more', so does that mean that if a person is convicted of a crime that carries a one year or more penalty but is only sentenced to 60 days, for instance, he still looses his Second Amendment right?

--Mandatory sentences for carrying a gun while younger than 21, with a five-year minimum prison term for a second offense.

This is, perhaps, the worst one. That may play in NYC or Detroit, but it doesn't make sense in the South.

--Possession of a firearm during a drug offense, other than simple possession, would itself be an offense, with a mandatory five-year sentence.

This one could probably be used wrong, also. What if somebody has possession of a gun when they're arrested for possession of a prescription drug that doesn't have their name on it, such as Viagra? Is is possible that the drug arrest could be dimissed but the guy could still get 5 years for the gun?

--Allow probation officers to conduct warrantless searches.

I don't know........

--Increase the punishment for assault and battery with intent to kill to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years. There is currently no mandatory minimum.

I like this one.

--All offenders would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Currently, the 85 percent rule does not apply to all offenses.

I don't get this one. Is this saying that the word mandatory in the above laws doesn't necessarily mean mandatory and there has to be an additional law to ensure that a mandatory sentence is carried out to at least 85 percent of it's mandatory duration?

All in all I agree: yankee gun-grab.

39 posted on 09/28/2006 6:58:32 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier

That is in direct contradiction to your statement, because we deprive non-felons the same way.

We also deprive those that have not been convicted of anything, but have restraining orders due to divorces (which has become part of the normal paperwork) regardless of any prior instances of abuse.

We also deprive people that are deemed mentally defective, which could one day include Christians/Conservatives/Republicans/etc.

We deprive people that live next door to a school (No gun/Safe School zones) even though they are not convicted of anything.

We deprive teachers (and college students) that have never been convicted of anything.

This is not about just "felons" or "criminals" but about the 2nd amendment. If you are deemed safe enough to be released into civilian population, then you should be considered safe enough to have your rights. If you can't be trusted (which many that are released can't be), then they shouldn't release you. I would be willing to bet that the Founding Fathers would say the same thing.


40 posted on 09/28/2006 8:07:25 AM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
So now your saying the founders would keep in prison those they deemed unfit to be free .

As for restricting the rights of felons, that was part of the North's oppression of the South after the War of Northern Agression. It was a way to deprive White Confederates of thier rights and to break the political power of the South. After the war Confederates were considered felons since they'd dare resist the federal government. Felons weren't allowed to vote.
41 posted on 09/28/2006 8:09:08 AM PDT by FroedrickVonFreepenstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
What is 'illegal' firearm possession? Is there a possibility that law abiding citizens will become 'criminals' under this law?

If you live in a Safe School/No Gun zone and you have firearms in your home would be illegal firearms possession.

The any crime carrying a punishment of one year or more in jail has a couple of troubling items. 1) a person sentenced to 1 year for tax evasion, or similar crimes, should not be stripped of Second Amendment right, and 2) it says 'carrying a punishment of one year or more', so does that mean that if a person is convicted of a crime that carries a one year or more penalty but is only sentenced to 60 days, for instance, he still looses his Second Amendment right?

Your tax evasion example is stripped of their right under current laws, same for what Martha Stewart was convicted of. The laws right now are that if the conviction of a crime that could carry a year or more, you lose your right. Even if you don't serve a day, but get probation, you still lose your right.

42 posted on 09/28/2006 8:17:41 AM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
If you live in a Safe School/No Gun zone and you have firearms in your home would be illegal firearms possession.

That's insane. Theoretically, government could extend all school zones to where they touched giving a city or county a blanket 'no gun zone', thereby converting law abiding citizens into criminals.

same for what Martha Stewart was convicted of.

Poor Martha!

Even if you don't serve a day, but get probation, you still lose your right.

That was my point. Over zealous lawmakers, especially ones with a gun control agenda, could begin slowly changing the minimum sentences to one year or more of many crimes that are currently less than one year in order to be able to round up more firearms.

43 posted on 09/28/2006 8:39:01 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

"That's insane. Theoretically, government could extend all school zones to where they touched giving a city or county a blanket 'no gun zone', thereby converting law abiding citizens into criminals."

All part of the plan, right now it is something like 500 feet. They won't just do that, but will extend it gradually until they have done just that. BTW, I know houses that fall within that zone. I don't know if the owners have firearms, I hope not.

"Poor Martha!"

You may not like her, but she did not do anything violent or that would give a common sense reason to take away the right. Which was my point.

"That was my point. Over zealous lawmakers, especially ones with a gun control agenda, could begin slowly changing the minimum sentences to one year or more of many crimes that are currently less than one year in order to be able to round up more firearms."

Yep that is exactly it. Speeding ticket, sentence could be 5 years but if you pay a $1000 fine you can stay out of jail/prison....oh and turn in your guns because you are deprived of the right to have them.


44 posted on 09/28/2006 9:05:42 AM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FroedrickVonFreepenstein

Ummm, no. They would prohibit convicted felons and insane people from possessing guns. There are contemporary writings to this effect -- can't recall who, but I've seen at least one such writing from a major founding father (i.e. somebody along the lines of Jefferson, Madison). But it's just common sense, and I'm sure countless examples can be found in legal/political writings of that era.

This was an era when it was simply understood that common sense ruled, and that nothing in the law was intended to trump common sense. Back then, if an irrationally babbling adult was found sitting in their own urine on a street corner, police were free to pick the person up and deposit him/her in an insane asylum, despite the person's protests that s/he wanted to stay on the street corner sitting in their own urine. Now police can't do this because we have endless cranks who will sue on behalf of these people, claiming their constitutional rights are being violated.


45 posted on 09/28/2006 9:58:54 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
I disagree. The framers would have kept a person in prison if they were not fit to be set free in civil society. If they were fit to be free, they were also fit to keep and bear arms.

I couldn't agree more... : ) <<< me

46 posted on 09/28/2006 11:14:17 AM PDT by stopsign ("What great fortune for government, That people don't think"....Der Fuhrer. Hummm.... : ) <<< me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

You can't be a cop until you turn 21 anyhow.


47 posted on 09/28/2006 6:51:16 PM PDT by antiunion person (Prejudice??? WHO ME?????????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson