Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[pbrower2a]

(02-10-2018, 06:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-10-2018, 01:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The militia clause could preclude people from having firearms if those people are unsuited due to moral turpitude, disloyalty, idiocy, or insanity. Thus "but not criminals", "but not the insane", "but not addicts", and "but not people with intellectual impairment" would be reasonable and minimal qualifications to any right to bear arms.

You have to have due process.  Being a felon involves due process.  Being insane could involve a due process, if defined carefully, if doctors with a well defined expertise were involved, and if a judge was involved.  Severe addicts might also be felons in many cases.  If you want to strip a right from an addict who is not a felon, good luck creating a well defined due process.

Determination of mental illness can be a legal process. Most people can recognize extreme manifestations of mental illness. There are practical measures of low intelligence, including IQ tests. Yes, people can kick addictions and alcoholism.

Quote:"People with intellectual impairment" could not be those with a non blue world view or values.  Good luck defining due process for that one.  Among other problems, you could not include anything related to party affiliation.

Obvious enough. If the State can deny people the right to bear arms based on political values, then it can authorize all sorts of discrimination in education, the right to start or operate a business or to work in certain occupations, marry, have children, travel, etc.... Yes, I know where that leads.

Quote:I can believe in a rewritten second which might include some of the ideas above, but agree with Eric that changes will not be made while values are so split.  More could be done with closing loopholes.  You'd have to work with the Constitution as written and amended, and the Founding Fathers were rather blatant in writing their beliefs into the law.

Beyond any question, any attempt to get a rational re-writing of the Second Amendment (which would include a non-discrimination clause, as with voting is out of the realm of possibility. I am convinced that except for weapons necessary for use by the military or law enforcement and firearms suitable  for sport hunting, and guns involved in hobbyist collections, we would be far safer without a huge part of the firearms in circulation.

Want a far safer and more reliable deterrent to crime than a gun?



Except for good behavior  -- both yours and that of the dog -- this is a dangerous creature. Burglars, rapists, and muggers beware: it can overpower a man three times its weight and deliver some horrible bites.

A hint: the Nazis quickly banned Jews from owning dogs as well as firearms.