US and NA Politics (General)

[hatoflords]

And after another shooting incident... maybe we shouldn't give concealed carry permits to people after they threaten to shoot up a fire station? At the very least, maybe we should take the permit away and say "yeah you're kind of freaking everyone out" after the holder of said permit gets a restraining order placed on them for threatening their wife. You'd think Chicago of all places would be on top of that one.

[Deleted]

Nov 21, 2018 9:57:40 GMT -5 hatoflords said:

And after another shooting incident... maybe we shouldn't give concealed carry permits to people after they threaten to shoot up a fire station? At the very least, maybe we should take the permit away and say "yeah you're kind of freaking everyone out" after the holder of said permit gets a restraining order placed on them for threatening their wife. You'd think Chicago of all places would be on top of that one.

Once the courts adjudicate a domestic restraining order, the dude automatically becomes an illegal possessor of firearms.  As in, he can't even possess them.

The court should've demanded he turn in the firearm that's linked to his conceal carry permit at the least.

[hatoflords]

Is that everywhere? That seems like something that'll vary by state. EDIT: To which I repeat, you'd think Chicago of all places would be on top of this.

EDIT EDIT: And wow I never mentioned what I'm talking about. I'm referring to yesterday's incident, the Mercy Hospital Shooting.

[Deleted]

Nov 21, 2018 10:18:19 GMT -5 hatoflords said:

Is that everywhere? That seems like something that'll vary by state. EDIT: To which I repeat, you'd think Chicago of all places would be on top of this.

It's federal law:
www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

-convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

-who is a fugitive from justice;

-who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

-who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

-who is an illegal alien;

-who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

-who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

-who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

-who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

What I'm NOT clear on, is once you've been deemed as "prohibited possessor"... are they supposed to turn in their firearms? (at least, the conceal carry license would indicate possessing firearms).

EDIT EDIT: And wow I never mentioned what I'm talking about. I'm referring to yesterday's incident, the Mercy Hospital Shooting.

I knew exactly what you're talking about. I work for hospital system... so, that was on our radar.

[CommieCanUCK]

Wow, that third clause is a doozy. User? How do they determine what counts as a user? How does famous drug addict Ted Nugent get to keep all his shootin' irons?

[hatoflords]

Sounds like someone either dun fethed up then. Can you petition to get it back at a later date? The order is reported as issued in 2014, but other reports are saying the perpetrator bought multiple weapons in the last five years, so that at the very least suggests (unless there's some legal caveat/detail we're missing, which is possible) that he was able to get guns when he wasn't supposed to be able to. Not to even mention the emerging reports of a long history of "this is a little disturbing" style behavior.

Reminds me a bit of that poor SOB a few years back. The one who opened fire in the Florida airport? Feels like another case of "someone really should have seen this coming and done something about it."

[Deleted]

Nov 21, 2018 12:17:46 GMT -5 CommieCanUCK said:

Wow, that third clause is a doozy. User? How do they determine what counts as a user? How does famous drug addict Ted Nugent get to keep all his shootin' irons?

You'd have to be convicted of what the DEA considers unlawful uses of controlled substances.

www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling

[Deleted]

Nov 21, 2018 12:18:00 GMT -5 hatoflords said:

Sounds like someone either dun fethed up then.

Maybe... I'm just unclear what happens *after* you've been deemed an illegal possessor. It could be that after adjudication, the court/staff would say or hand a packet saying "you can't possess firearms' when subjected this ruling.  I'm just not sure and the 'net is failing me at the moment.

Can you petition to get it back at a later date?

I believe so... I don't recall the term, but basically your attorney files a request for the judge to rescind the restraining order.  Thus, at that point you're legally able to possess firearms.

The order is reported as issued in 2014, but other reports are saying the perpetrator bought multiple weapons in the last five years, so that at the very least suggests (unless there's some legal caveat/detail we're missing, which is possible) that he was able to get guns when he wasn't supposed to be able to. Not to even mention the emerging reports of a long history of "this is a little disturbing" style behavior.

That's my read too... either the background check failed because of institutional incompetence, or we're missing some additional details.

Reminds me a bit of that poor SOB a few years back. The one who opened fire in the Florida airport? Feels like another case of "someone really should have seen this coming and done something about it."

Yup... that's what it looks like to me too.

[semipotentwalrus]

Ohio's trying to ban abortion. Good thing you have a Supreme Court system where previous precedent can't be overturned decades later without the law changing, eh?

www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/health/ohio-abortion-ban-heartbeat-bill.html

[A Town Called Malus]

Nov 22, 2018 3:12:41 GMT -5 semipotentwalrus said:

Ohio's trying to ban abortion. Good thing you have a Supreme Court system where previous precedent can't be overturned decades later without the law changing, eh?

www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/health/ohio-abortion-ban-heartbeat-bill.html

That law is utter garbage.

[CommieCanUCK]

It's the rational party of small government and fiscal responsibility, throwing away money on a hugely intrusive, draconian law in order to virtue signal to assuage their base's outraged feelings.

[Deleted]

Nov 22, 2018 3:12:41 GMT -5 semipotentwalrus said:

Ohio's trying to ban abortion. Good thing you have a Supreme Court system where previous precedent can't be overturned decades later without the law changing, eh?

www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/health/ohio-abortion-ban-heartbeat-bill.html

Good.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Normally I'd say this would be struck down pretty quick, but as SCOTUS isn't impartial anymore...

[CommieCanUCK]

Nov 22, 2018 13:32:39 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Normally I'd say this would be struck down pretty quick, but as SCOTUS isn't impartial anymore...

It's okay, I've been reassured that, despite what Bretty K might have said in the past, all his SC rulings will be strictly an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, based on what the authors meant at the time of writing. Isn't that a relief?

[hatoflords]

Nov 22, 2018 13:52:25 GMT -5 CommieCanUCK said:

Nov 22, 2018 13:32:39 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Normally I'd say this would be struck down pretty quick, but as SCOTUS isn't impartial anymore...

It's okay, I've been reassured that, despite what Bretty K might have said in the past, all his SC rulings will be strictly an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, based on what the authors meant at the time of writing. Isn't that a relief?

Yes. Soon blacks will be back to being 2/3rds of a person for representation but not a person at all for any other purpose, as the founders intended because the intent of men who lived in 1780 is the only thing that should be considered.