Then why have any laws at all since a person inclined to criminality isn't apt to follow them anyway?
With regard to children, their parents should be the ones to determine what they are allowed to have.
And if they decide it's fine with them for their 5 year old to pack a Glock to day school then the rest of us just need to smile and say, "Ain't that cute?"
With regard to those who are mentally incompetent, is there any reason that the standard of proof required to disarm someone should be any lower than the standard of proof required to find them incapable of managing their own affairs?
Wouldn't that require some sort of standard to judge them by? If so, then shouldn't the state decide that and not the feds?
Among other things, to indicate which people the government may legitimately imprison for the purpose of protecting the reset of society.
And if they decide it's fine with them for their 5 year old to pack a Glock to day school then the rest of us just need to smile and say, "Ain't that cute?"
A person who observes a five-year-old doing something that they would not expect a parent would permit may in some cases reasonably attempt to uphold what they reasonably believe to be the will of the parent. In practice, this will often mean that minors will be prevented from doing a lot of things in many situations when their parents are not present. What is important to note, however, is that such restrictions exist for the purpose of upholding the presumed will of the parent; evidence which would overcome the presumption voids the restriction.
Wouldn't that require some sort of standard to judge them by? If so, then shouldn't the state decide that and not the feds?
The standards for judging incompetence are set by the states. My question remains: is there any reason that the standard of proof required to disarm someone indefinitely should be any lower than the standard of proof required to find someone incapable of managing his own affairs?