Fed Court Denies Navy Veteran From Owning Gun Due To 1968 Misdemeanor
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 2 of 3  
Message
re: Fed Court Denies Navy Veteran From Owning Gun Due To 1968 Misdemeanor
Posted by CITWTT on 1/12 at 2:40 pm to Tigah in the ATL
More like an appeal to the mans stability outside of a one time incident over forty years ago. Liberals like to call that the exuberance of youth, and say a person should not be judged upon it.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Lsut81 on 1/12 at 3:02 pm to wickowick
Wow... so a fist fight 40yrs ago is enough to bar you from owning a firearm?

I hope this guy goes down the street and buys one on the black market.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by los angeles tiger on 1/12 at 3:04 pm to Lsut81
quote:

I hope this guy goes down the street and buys one on the black market.


That's the only way any of us should buy them at this point. Look at what happened to the people in New York for being law abiding citizens. They have their names and addresses published in the paper to intimidate them. They didn't commit a crime.




Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Lsut81 on 1/12 at 3:10 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:

They have their names and addresses published in the paper to intimidate them. They didn't commit a crime.



Govts gotta keep tabs on everyone


quote:

That's the only way any of us should buy them at this point.


Well I wouldn't know because I dont own a gun, never held or shot a gun, and don't plan on buying one... Hell, I've never even seen one in person




Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by lsu13lsu on 1/12 at 3:24 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:

The screws are tightening.

In the cc classes I'm in right now we just finished discussion of the crossover of guns and medicine.

If you have ever been prescribed an anti depressent prepare to have your license app subjected to extra scrutiny today.

Tomorrow prepare to have it denied.


This is the kind of thing people fear. Yet, Libs flippantly say "The government isn't taking away your guns."



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by braindeadboxer on 1/12 at 3:50 pm to Lsut81
quote:

Well I wouldn't know because I dont own a gun, never held or shot a gun, and don't plan on buying one... Hell, I've never even seen one in person


This is sad. Your missing out



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by MoreOrLes on 1/12 at 3:53 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:

That's the only way any of us should buy them at this point. Look at what happened to the people in New York for being law abiding citizens. They have their names and addresses published in the paper to intimidate them. They didn't commit a crime.



Thats one reason why the NRA doesn't ever want "a List"



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by braindeadboxer on 1/12 at 3:53 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:

This is the kind of thing people fear. Yet, Libs flippantly say "The government isn't taking away your guns."


In not going to lie, I'd grin a little bit if some old geezer like this gets pushed a tad too far and he goes shoot up a "Young College Democrats" meeting or something. I won't condone it, and I know it would really make it hell on us responsible gun owners, but I still think I'd crack a small grin.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by SoulGlo on 1/12 at 4:11 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:

quote:
Navy Veteran adds to the story
appeal to emotion



You can't think of a more viable reason than that? fricking hack.


The answer is that the man is more trained in the care and proper use of firearms than the vast majority of the public.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by thetempleowl on 1/12 at 4:24 pm to SoulGlo
I'm going out on a limb here, but sorry for him.

Those are the rules.

There needs to be some rules in place. That is the law. The law hasn't been changed. The law is in black and white. You shouldn't selectively enforce the law.

And the fact that he is a veteran is really immaterial to the discussion.

I think that the program to allow people to petition the BATF should be funded again. Instantly. You shouldn't be able to take away someones rights without that person having the chance to get them back.

But as it stands now, I would not grant him the right. That would be in violation of the law.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by C on 1/12 at 4:44 pm to thetempleowl
quote:

You shouldn't selectively enforce the law.


except they do, Mr. Gregory.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Diamondawg on 1/12 at 8:59 pm to TrueTiger
quote:

Judge explains BATF defunding
That guy was convicted in Federal court. The OP should have been convicted in State court. Big difference when it comes to restoring gun rights (disclaimer - not an attorney)



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by John McClane on 1/12 at 9:00 pm to wickowick
That's awful


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by jacks40 on 1/12 at 10:51 pm to braindeadboxer
quote:

In not going to lie, I'd grin a little bit if some old geezer like this gets pushed a tad too far and he goes shoot up a "Young College Democrats" meeting or something


Jesus



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by foshizzle on 1/12 at 11:00 pm to wickowick
This is completely irrelevant to the general public. Anyone inclined to draw conclusions beyond this specific case has rocks in his head.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Five0 on 1/13 at 4:35 am to Diamondawg
quote:

That guy was convicted in Federal court. The OP should have been convicted in State court. Big difference when it comes to restoring gun rights (disclaimer - not an attorney)


This guy was convicted of misdemeanor assault. He should still have his right to bear arms. He has no need to have his right restored. However, when it comes to guns, there is a movement to have laws retroactively applied. This is especially true when it involves domestic violence. There is both misdemeanor and felony domestic violence, the domestic violence misdemeanor is applied like a felony in regards to gun rights. This guy is getting hosed. Sounds like an equal protection issue to me. If someone was convicted of misdemeanor assault today this would not be an issue. That is not right.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Helo on 1/13 at 6:23 am to wickowick
Such a ridiculous case.

The rules for gun denial although needing to be fixed for certain issues have deficiencies as shown in this case. There should be a procedure one should be able to go through to be cleared through BATF. I would think joining and Navy and living another 40 years without incident would be more than enough.

I support more scrutiny in background checks as long as there are procedures in place to: protect those misidentified or unfairly flagged, allow for a set of rules to be cleared, and clearly outline what "mental issues" would prevent someone from obtaining a firearm.

Say a college kid is going through a rough patch and he is suffering from depression and seeks the help of a counselor. Assuming he gets back on track is this person going to be prevented from ever clearing the background check? If this list ends up like the NoFly list where once on you have no recourse to get cleared, that is going to create havoc and prevent those from needing help from getting it.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by CITWTT on 1/13 at 7:17 am to foshizzle
Ever heard of setting a precedent when legal proceedings are involved? That case is a prime example of such being handed down by a group of judges on the federal level. Go back to your hole in the sand.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by themunch on 1/13 at 7:51 am to CITWTT
Ever heard of setting a precedent


THIS. It will be forever referenced in all future legal decisions. You can bank on it.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Diamondawg on 1/13 at 7:54 am to Five0
quote:

This guy was convicted of misdemeanor assault. He should still have his right to bear arms. He has no need to have his right restored. However, when it comes to guns, there is a movement to have laws retroactively applied. This is especially true when it involves domestic violence. There is both misdemeanor and felony domestic violence, the domestic violence misdemeanor is applied like a felony in regards to gun rights. This guy is getting hosed. Sounds like an equal protection issue to me. If someone was convicted of misdemeanor assault today this would not be an issue. That is not right.


I guess you missed my point. Rant on........



Reply  •  Back to Top  •  Refresh
Return to Board
Jump to Page   

           Page 2 of 3           


 

 Message Boards
 Tiger Rant
 Recruiting Board
 SEC Rant
 Saints Talk
 Pelicans Talk
 More Sports Board
 Coaching Changes
 Soccer Board
 O-T Lounge
 Tech Board
 Outdoor Board
 Movie/TV Board
 Music Board
 Political Talk
 Money Talk
 Fark Board
 Gaming Board
 Fantasy Sports
 Food and Drink Board
 Ticket Exchange
 Help Board
 

 News
 LSU
 More Sports
 Sports Lite
 

 Other Options
 >> Search
 

 SECRant.com Links
 SEC Rant
 SEC Recruiting
 SEC Tickets
 Off-Topic Board
 

 Geaux.com Dining Guide
 New Orleans
 Baton Rouge
 

 Site Features (Full Version)
 Home Page
 LSU Football Schedule
 Pick'em Home Page
 
Back to top
Sign In 
View in: Desktop
Copyright ©2014 TigerDroppings.com.