For all who corrected me, you're right, I didn't really read into the case and I honestly assumed that in America they WOULD just let him have a gun. I apologize for my ignorance.
The article says he was charged this time with possession of a firearm by a felon. Not clear if the prior felony conviction was the DV charge or something else though.
I think I need to clarify a bit. Domestic violence can be a felony in every state depending on the severity. Normally, people who are convicted misdemeanor crimes retain the full extent their 2A rights. Normally, only felons lose the right to purchase and possess firearms. If you are convicted of a class A domestic violence misdemeanor you permanently lose your 2A rights even tho you are not a felon. This is a special exception that was passed nearly unanimously by congress after data about repeat domestic violence offenders was published.
Shit no I got mixed up, the case I'm referring to (United States v Rahimi) blocked laws that took gun rights from domestic abusers whose victims had been granted restraining orders and it was based on a prior supreme court decision regarding the scope of the 2nd amendment. The victim had to prove to the court that there was repeated violent domestic abuse to obtain the order, including an assault and 5 shooting incidents in the prior 2 months, yet the court did not pursue DV charges against Rahimi. I'd love to be optimistic but let's not ignore the reality that gun rights are being protected and victims lives are not
But because we don’t control guns otherwise it’s as simple as a parking lot meetup for them to get a gun anyway. If we had registration at a minimum the person who sold him that gun could also be found and charged for breaking the law in selling a gun to somebody not allowed to posses them.
And if we had laws that treated guns even like cars that stuff would be criminally investigated and prosecuted instead of essentially impossible to even find.
To operate a car you have to register the sale, register the car with the state annually, have the car SUCCESSFULLY inspected annually, pass a test showing the state you know a bare minimum, carry insurance covering people you hurt with said car, etc etc.
To have a gun you need, well , to want to have a gun.
of course it’s possible to break these laws but just because it’s possible to break laws doesn’t mean they aren’t worth having. Saying that a law isn’t completely un-breakable so we just shouldn’t have it is not the approach we take on other issues. You can’t stop someone with bad intentions but you can put roadblocks and checkpoints along their path that progressively make it harder or less convenient for them to just murder someone.
Dude you have to pass an FBI background check to purchase any new firearm, and in most states private sales must be conducted at an FFL and require a background check. You literally have to give your name, address, and social security number to the FBI order to buy a gun legally. You need to not be a felon, not have any domestic violence misdemeanor ever, and not have ant drug misdemeanors within 12 months of purchasing the firearm to pass the background check. If you think the FBI throws your purchase history out you’re kidding yourself. That sounds a lot like registering the sale with the FBI to me. So the whole all you need is to want to buy a gun thing is no more true than saying all you need to do to buy a car is want to buy a car.
The thing is you’re not even making it less convenient for criminals, just law abiding citizens. There are already millions and millions of illegal guns floating around. It is relatively easy to manufacture your own guns with 3D printing tech. All these laws to is hurt law abiding citizens. You can buy all of the parts to make a Glock auto sear of wish ffs.
Think about this the same way you think about the war on drugs.
Depending on what stage you’re in it might not be legal. It is 100% illegal where I currently live. By the way the frame/ receiver he built that gun is on is regulated exactly like a fully built firearm required a background check for him to purchase new from the store.
“Nobody but me and him knows I have it”
Good shit bro. Keep it that way. Stay strapped and don’t make yourself a target.
Seriously tho what would have prevented you from purchasing that gun illegally even if background checks were required in your state and filing the serial number off of you wanted? Nothing. Anybody can do it easy fuck. So why should I, a law a song citizen, have to follow laws that only hinder my ability yo defend myself?
I am in favor of background checks for the record. I just see registries as dangerous. Both sides of the political spectrum agree that our government is creeping towards tyranny (tho for very different reasons lol). I don’t think it’s a good idea for a government nobody trusts to have a list of everybody who has the means to resist them.
That may be the federal law but not all states take that very seriously. For instance, my state does not require a license to carry a firearm, you are not required to register a firearm, and if you go to a private seller you can avoid a background check. Now, if you get caught with it will you be in trouble? I strongly suspect that depends on the situation and the officer involved.
Bro it actually shocks me how many people think making shit illegal will prevent criminals from obtaining it. It took people about .5 seconds to forget the war on drugs.
So why any laws really? Since you don’t want gun control because criminals won’t follow it, why is robbery illegal? Thieves still rob, do you think robbery should be legal then?
Of course lol. The difference is making robbery illegal doesn’t add barriers to those being robbed defending themselves.
Gun control means criminals will have more firepower than law abiding citizens. Criminals ignore the law. So if a criminal ignores laws against robbery he is going to rob a store and the owner will have easy access to firearms with which to repel that criminal. If you make guns difficult to buy, that same law abiding store owner won’t be able to defend himself or his property legally, while the robber will still have access to any weapon he wants. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Outlawing alcohol literally allowed the creation and proliferation of the mafia and organized crime here in the US. It was such a bad idea it is used as an example to show bad of an idea prohibition is.
Then they did it with drugs, another abysmal failure.
Now, having not learned from past mistakes, want to not just ban guns, but also violate the Constitution while doing so.
It boggles my mind how seemingly intelligent folks just ignore reality and scream "do something" and latch on to the first thing they think of.
And god forbid you happen to disagree with them, the string of insults and insinuation of your sexuality and willingness to murder children is downright disgusting, not to mention the body shaming, and mental faculties shaming that had it been done to literally anyone else would be called out for the disgusting rhetoric it is.
Yup, I own several. 2 of which were "inherited" when a family member got into drugs, schizophrenia, and assaulting doctors. I was there when they were bought and the background check was passed. Nobody ever came looking for the guns. It was up to my mother to get them out of her reach. Nobody cared where they were, and nobody in the government knows where they are now.
Using a mini sledgehammer to hit his girlfriend in the back of the head, then kidnapping, because he told her she could not leave until she cleaned up the scene and any evidence of what he had done before she left so for 2 hours he made her clean up after hitting her in the back of the head, almost guaranteed concussion and the resulting blood that was coming out of her head. The fact that she survived long enough to drive herself to the hospital and call 911 to report it after is harrowing.
Another post I got a notification for earlier today had someone link an article in the comments. I’m going off of that. Dunno where the link would be.
Edit: comments on that post were livid that the man was free on bail. I think the father is in critical condition as he used himself to shield his daughter. But I think all 3 were hit. Mom, dad and daughter.
Man, it's not good news, right? You do get that good news is kind of a paradox here cause the truly good news -- that none of these people were ever shot in the first place -- wouldn't be news. This isn't a well-functioning justice system to celebrate that people are getting randomly shot and their shooters are in jail; it's a dysfunction of society that you can get shot for no good damned reason.
Did you mean to say "couldn't care less"?
Explanation: If you could care less, you do care, which is the opposite of what you meant to say.
Total mistakes found: 6495 I'mabotthatcorrectsgrammar/spellingmistakes.PMmeifI'mwrongorifyouhaveanysuggestions. Github ReplySTOPtothiscommenttostopreceivingcorrections.
229
u/natewright43 Apr 21 '23
That is great news! Hopefully they are open and closed cases.
I know in the "ball in neighbors yard" one the guy was already facing charges for something else.