Reply #79: well apparently that ain't so [View All]

[iverglas]

We have two paths for disarming someone short of a criminal conviction, mental health adjudication, etc.:

A. A restraining order alleging domestic violence, and

B. Indictment on a felony of any kind, or on a violent misdemeanor.


First, just a humble request.

Is there any chance we could do without the moronic jargon?

"Disarming someone". Now, if a person keeps firearms solely for the purpose of hunting, s/he is never "armed". If a person keeps firearms solely for the purpose of skeet shooting, s/he is never "armed". If a person keeps firearms solely for the purpose of investing, s/he is never "armed".

Eligibility to acquire and possess firearms has nothing to do with the purpose for which someone wishes to acquire and possess them, generally. So it has nothing to do with anyone being "armed", from the point of view of the authority that determines eligibility.

So what you have is two paths for disqualifying someone from acquiring and possessing firearms, and enforcing that disqualification when it occurs after someone has acquired firearms. Not for "disarming" anyone.

Alrighty.

It seems not to be so. It seems that the FOID requirement in Illinois is more expansive than that.


And what the rest of it comes down to is:

(a) I and many people would prefer to err on the side of temporarily depriving someone of eligibility to possess firearms, and of firearms, where there is reason to believe that s/he has harmed or is harming or will harm another person.

(b) You and others here would prefer to err on the side of someone getting killed, where there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has either a disqualifying criminal record or a disqualifying mental health record (or a current restraining order or outstanding criminal charges).


Both of those require someone to make a sworn statement and have some kind of documentation that there is a criminal problem. Allegations don't.

Well, we don't actually know whether there are sworn statements in this case, maybe -- although given that there are child access proceedings underway in civil court, I would expect there are affidavits or solemn declarations involved.

So require a sworn statement. Seems easy to me. A sworn statement attesting to harm or fear of harm. Ta da.

Mind you ... someone, like an abused woman, might be reluctant to go doing something like that. And without the sworn statement, the man who everyone knew was at risk of causing harm to others, but had nothing they could swear to that met the criteria, might just shoot his wife, or his kids, or his wife and kids, and/or himself ...

But hell. They'd all die with his constitutional rights uninfringed.


They actually don't think that the most important thing is that the menz not be separated from their gunz ...
Wow, a plain old straw man.

I'm afraid I'm just not smelling any straw.

What I'm seeing is you and others insisting that men's right to possess firearms outweighs anyone's interest in safety, i.e. in life. And that's what I said.