From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Fri May 28 1999 - 22:11:19 MDT
Date sent: Fri, 28 May 1999 20:01:01 -0700
From: Doug Jones <random@qnet.com>
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> Hey, I think we might actually have a coherent and polite dialog
> going on here... will wonders never cease? :)
>
> Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > [Doug Jones wrote]
> > > Several posters, including
> > > myself, have raised the question of what standards of proof and due
> > > process your concept would require.
> > >
> > That has never been before raised to my knowledge (post a past
> > mail and prove me wrong), but any due process that any other
> > purported offence is granted seems equitable.
>
> A few posts back, I wrote
>
> I gather the impression that, unlike many "ban the gun" advocates,
> you don't mind gun ownership by non-felons, and you own weapons
> yourself. Sadly it appears that most mass shooters are not
> convicted felons *at the time they commit their attacks*, and
> banning the possession of guns by _potential_ shooters would
> require
> massive infringements of civil rights- for who can identify a
> potential shooter? Psychological screening for firearms
> purchases?
> The possibilities for political abuse of such a system would be
> large.
>
> I must admit that I was putting up a bit of a strawman; the only
> credible standard for restricting possession on "mental" grounds is
> via due process in the courts, imperfect but the best we have.
>
> On the other hand, some states' laws include "anyone ever committed
> for mental observation", which could be abused if not kept in the
> public eye. The burden of proof should be on the regulatory agency,
> of course, and I feel a commitment for observation should not in
> itself be grounds for dispossession, since it is an investigatory
> action, not a result of due process.
>
> As with all things human, some dangerous people would not be
> identified, while some actually harmless people might lose some
> rights without due process. The question moves to, "How effective
> are these laws?"
>
We can only discover that in practice.
>
> I misattributed this quote:
>
> > > "To support my point I state this: The guy I was just referring
> > > to who stated he would rather kill a police officer (who most
> > > likely has a wife and family) or other law enforcement officers
> > > than have his gun taken away SHOULD have his license revoked
> > > for saying that and have his weapons taken away as he is
> > > talking like a potential killer and is clearly a threat to
> > > the general public from my perspective."
> > >
> > Ahh, the domino theory again! First of all, I didn't write that.
>
> Oops, my error. I mistook Rick@cyborg.force9.net for you, probably
> due to a similarity in your styles. My apologies, I have no good
> excuse, but it was an error, not a deliberate distortion.
>
> The legislation you seek is already in effect, for example in
> California:
>
> POSSESSION
>
> It is unlawful for anyone convicted of a felony, or who is
> a drug addict, present or former mental patient, ever committed
> for mental observation, or acquitted by reason of insanity to
> own or possess any firearm. People with certain misdemeanor
> convictions involving force or violence may not possess or own
> any firearm within 10 years of the conviction. A person who
> has been adjudicated as a juvenile offender or delinquent for
> any offense which would be classified as a felony or misdemeanor
> involving force or violence if committed by an adult may not
> own or possess any firearm until age 30. A minor may not possess
> a handgun except with written permission or under the
> supervision of a parent or guardian.
>
> Another quibble with the above is the "drug addict" part- what
> drugs, and what definition of addiction? I'll have to look further,
> but that's probably anyone who has signed up for a publicly funded
> detox program, such as methadone maintenance. If that's so, then
> due process has kinda sorta been satisfied, but perhaps the
> paperwork for voluntary drug treatment commitment should include the
> warning that certain civil rights are signed away by that act.
>
> A friend of mine in Colorado was a heroin addict twenty years ago,
> but has been clean ever since then. As it turns out, Colorado law
> does not have a "drug addict" clause, so her possession of firearms
> (and she protected *me* from assault once) is legal in Colorado. I
> doubt she'll move to California anytime soon though...
>
Exactly why I specified "violent criminal". I do not believe that
those who have committed nonviolent or victimless crimes such as
marijuana use, homosexuality, gambling, prostitution, etc. should
be deprived of their right to keep and bear. I have never advocated
their inclusion in such statutes.
>
> -attribution corrected here-
> > > [Rick] wants to disarm the man described above simply because
> > > he *does not want to be disarmed*, and is willing to fight
> > > such oppression.
> > >
> > As long as the cops aren't banging down his door, there's no
> > problem. If he's a nut, kid or criminal, they SHOULD be taking his
> > gun away, and better that he die than some shnook on the street
> > who looks like a good target to him.
>
> Ok, you have a more reasonable position than Rick... and that
> position is already law in many states. Enforcement is a tough one,
> though- the cops & DAs are up to their eyeballs in this bloody
> useless war on drugs (but that's a flamewar for another day <grin>).
>
I fully agree with you on that.
>
> > > Now do you see why some of us question your motives and goals? Your
> > > thinking is a catch-22... you seem to be saying that as long as a
> > > person doesn't mind being forcibly disarmed, he may (might?) keep
> > > those arms.
> > >
> > If they abrogate their rights by committing violent crimes, abusing
> > their spouses and/or children, developing legitimately certifiable
> > psychoses, then they NEED to be disarmed, and the sooner the
> > better. If not, there's no problem.
>
> Agreed, with rights come responsibilities. Persons shown by due
> process, on public record, to be in that set above are in most
> jurisdictions in the US already banned from gun ownership. Thus I
> think we have little to truly disagree on.
>
It also appears that way to me.
> --
> Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber
> Rotary Rocket Company
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:52 MST