Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor
So a guy with a felony tax evasion rap or convicted of disorderly conduct should never again own a gun?
|
The portion of the OP that you focus on:
“...criminals and mentally ill should never be allowed weapons...”
...was really an imprecise aside and not the main point of my post - mea culpa. There are felonies and then there are felonies in the context of gun confiscation statutes. Point well made. And, I understand that convicted felons might be able to petition the feds to see if they might be approved to own weapons. States have thier own set of rules and there may even be differences regarding handguns and long guns. These are also asides and not the intended focus of the OP or this post.
My intended focus in the OP was really for the reader to be focusing on DUE PROCESS in the context of gun confiscation statutes...but...I did say (even if it was merely an imprecise statement said in passing and not the focus) in that post that “...criminals and mentally ill should never be allowed weapons...” so allow me to briefly clarify a bit and elaborate - using your examples of tax evasion and disorderly conduct...and do so in the context of what was my intended focus...DUE PROCESS. Again, mea culpa, but your question does allow me some elaboration which might induce some to read the attached article which was the subject of the OP - and that might get some folks to think about what a well-drafted gun confiscation statute might actually contemplate and include.
So, to address tax evasion and disorderly conduct in the context of gun-confiscation statutes and due process...Ahhh, felony tax evasion - you talking a true tax gangsta ? Millions at issue? Offshore accounts, money laundering?...serious stuff?...sorry no gun if I’m king for a day.
Disorderly only?...yes a felony...but...I’d like to know more...did the accused cause a friggen riot with serious injuries?...or...like under some disorderly state statutes...just made “unreasonable noise?”
Riot? violent behavior with serious injuries? (not self-defense) = typically no gun if I’m king for a day.
In contrast, if “unreasonable noise” ... merely means loud pipes on your Harley...then you can still play if I’m king for a day.
So, to reiterate, the truly significant point of the OP in the context of gun confiscation statutes...REQUIRING that DUE PROCESS generally be granted to an accused pursuant to gun confiscation statutes - generally provides a reasonable opportunity for a judge to address the nuances of your suggested concerns.
Due process...will assure that someone (both sides) will be granted notice and opportunity to be heard...
The judge, listening to both sides should be able to flesh out the underlying truth of the matter asserted as well as the context of the matter and if the statute is properly drafted...exercise some discretion.
Thus, generally speaking, the mere granting of due process - proper notice, a hearing with a true opportunity to be heard - will typically provide an opportunity for a judge to assess whether you are truly dangerous or mentally ill...or both.
Of course, there are circumstances that will require immediate action and judges are human so while not perfect...due process...is not just the best that we’ve got...but it is also a Consitutional guarantee. The ex-parte grabs should truly be a tiny tiny fraction of all cases - highly unusual cases.
And, finally as your examples provide...DUE PROCESS will hopefully (depending on how well the state statute is drafted) provide the opportunity for a reasonable judge to exercise some discretion under a truly lawful gun confiscation circumstance.