[Changed title from "Supreme Court" to "Appeals Court" to reflect actual decision - AR]




I think crimes you commit as a juvenile shouldn't strike against you as an adult.

Obviously extreme cases like premeditated murder or something like that are different.


I think this leads to a slippery slope. What do you think?

Well, let's see. Is it a violation of the 2nd to deny firearms ownership to convicted felons? Does the constitution make a distinction between juveniles and adults in this area?

I think we all oppose the incremental expansion of the classes of persons prohibited from possessing firearms, simply because the end game is that everyone who's ever had a parking ticket is disqualified. That said, I don't think that this case reflects such an incremental expansion, and I don't think that this is an especially useful test of the constitutional principles involved.

I believe all free men should be legally able to keep and bear arms.

(If they can't be trusted with a weapon, they shouldn't be free.)

+1

+1

I would have to disagree... I think that certain individuals require a loss of freedom through lack of capabilities...

For example, someone who has mental instabilities does not deserve to be locked up, but I think they should not own a gun.

It's subjective.

What was the offense? Was it a truly violent act? Was anyone killed? Did the hupothetical juvenile express any regrets or commit multiple crimes over an extended period of time?

If the little punk showed no respect for society and was running around like a mad dog despite multiple judgements or is was associated with a gang, the right to own firearms should go bye-bye.

If the kid was just being a kid and had a temporary excess of stupidity, forgiveness should be the policy. Mailbox baseball... a felony, but also a teenage stunt that a lot of people have tried at one time or another. What teenage boy hasn't dabbled in the dark art of garage chemistry, seeing how big a boom they could make with what was in the tool shed?

We grow up. Sometimes we do dumb things, but we grow up.

He was convicted of a drive-by shooting. Two years later he's carrying a loaded gun in the woods.

I am unconvinced he has repented of his ways in such a short amount of time.

I think that is a reasonable disagreement. And I agree that not everyone that cannot be trusted with a weapon should be in prison. I don't know the right answer, but anyone with a medical mental issue that could cause them to harm someone via a gun (or any weapon or object) should not be roaming the street unsupervised (ie not free.)

+1

Having worked in the area of mental illness and homelessness, I agree with SoB. In my experience, which is not small, those individuals who are able to live semi-independently or with minimal supports are not a threat & often being more in touch with their illness, may be in fact safer than the average gun owner who doesn't carry via permit (there is a degree of lifestyle and seriousness that goes with using the carry permit which often isn't present in the incidental gun owner who may only use their gun for suicide or to play out a fit of rage, otherwise leaving it to collect dust) .. . for the mentally ill but semi-independent/ minimal support folks, there are support structures in place, they have people making sure they don't run out of meds, they have numbers they can call when they are feeling "off" and docs to make adjustments . . . . I can't say I have ever encountered someone who belonged outside of confinement that I wouldn't trust with a weapon & that includes schizophrenic crack addicts, meth head war vets with PTSD and several other "volitile" combinations. If they could live semi-independently or with minimal supports, I had no problem with them carrying knives & wouldn't have a problem with them having guns.

Of course I realize I am digressing . . .

Back on topic. There is a delicate point here. The idea that free people may not be safe in possession of firearms is the argument of the Antis. The Antis argue that maybe you'd be safe and responsible and maybe you wouldn't, so better to err on the side of caution. I think rather that we need to be cautious we don't find ourselves singing out of the Anti-2A hymnal or elevating ourselves to that "more-equal" status that some LEOs assume when dealing with "other" classes and the right to bear arms.

I agree.
Before the mods bust you for quoting something I didn't say:

(If they can't be trusted with a weapon, they AREN'T free.)

Good call. Before Andrew gets you, I will- DON'T "FIX" QUOTES!

So, you guys who believe free men should have RKBA restored after prison are sure prison rehabilitates folks? Why is it that many of us talk about actions over words, but not when it comes to RKBA issues. This is exactly what the anti's claim, "We" want everyone to have guns. I believe actions speak louder than words. I would be willing to restore rights to convicts after, say 10 years with no other LEO contacts in that time. But to give idiots like the guy in the story full RKBA rights the day he walks out of prison, I disagree with.

We need to know what this "drive by" incident really was. If it was just a bunch of high schoolers in a car paintballing road signs (which may be considered drive by shooting? although the felony part may explain a lot)... it is a lot different than shooting real guns at people...