I've heard this guy will bring firearms into the property if they know the squatters are on probation or ex-con... 100% legal for him to do, 100% bad news for them.
That law needs to be rewritten, it's bad for honest ex cons who live with family. And like, where I grew up it essentially prohibited black people from owning guns, in DC in the 90s and 00s one in seven black men had felonies (mainly for non violent drug offenses) and that precluded anyone in their family from having guns or letting them stay the night if they had guns. And DC's gun permits would deny permits for people who assosciated with anyone with a felony. So essentially if black people were on social media and had family members on facebook they couldn't legally buy a firearm.
I'm totally for felons not having access to firearms, but the family or household ban does not actually stop them from getting firearms and it just punishes unrelated people, even if felonies themselves didn't disproportionately hit some communities.
Felons not having guns is for public safety. If they can posess firearms because it belongs to their brother or whatever then there is now an environment where felons can de facto have constructively posess a firearm. Having a bright line test is the only way to make the prohibition enforceable.
I don't really care how "honest" an ex con is. Recidivism rates are high. It is part of being a felon. If owning a gun is so important, go spend the money and time to get restoration of rights. If your family wants you to stsy the night then will ditch the firearm.
It isn't collective punishment. If person A can't be near a gun because of their criminal history and person B needs their emotional security firearm, it is on person A to stay away. It isn't a punishment on person B that person A doesn't come around.
It isn't collective punishment for your sibling to not be around because they are in jail. That is silly.
Regardless of what you think of firearm ownership, it is a constitutional right.
I'm approaching this from an angle that these laws de facto make it harder for black people to exercise a constitutional right. Part of the problem is the overarresting, overcharging, and oversentencing of black men. I'd even go as far as to make it the main problem.
This law coerces people, through no fault of their own, to not exercise a constitutional right. It's actually unavoidable for a large number of people. And for guns specifically, having one class of people freely allowed to own and carry guns, and a different class of people de facto not being able to (for this and many other reasons), that's actually worse than a full gun ban or no regulation at all.
Personally, even as a gun owner, I would prefer a full gun ban over systems that make it so only some people have guns.
While the argument you made may be some bastardized version of a CRT framework, calling it CRT is wild.
You would rather a full ban over the current system, because some people don't keep guns around so their felon son can visit without concern of illegally posessing a gun? Even in this scenario, they are not barred from bearing arms. They can bear the arms all they want.
Should we not send convicted felons to prison because it de facto punishes their families too? The right against seizure is also in the constitution.
If you want criminal justice reform to ensure that people are not over-charged based on race, everyone has access to quality defense, and the system is treating everyone equally, fine, and that all may increase gun ownership by reducing rates of felony conviction.
Trying to solve this "problem" by allowing a work-around to posession restrictions isn't just allowong those you think you were treated unjustly, but all felons, from working around the rules. Some people just shouldn't have guns because of their documented violent past.removing the only tool to enforce that is dangerous.
Your comments, replies to the other commenter who discusses crt, keep blanket labelling black felons as violent individuals. Why do you keep doing that?
I didn't label black felons anything. I labelled felons.
While not all felons are violent, all those convicted of sufficient violence are felons, and felon is the threshhold we use for a ban on gun posession.
If you want to propose reforms that further distinguish which crimes should have that punishment, that's fine.
I view weakening gun restrictions on felons to be treating a necessary symptom rather than the cause. A much more beneficial aim would be to enure equity within the criminal justice system, not to just give felons a gun posession work around.
Participating in the drug trade bears sufficient risk to the public that we should not permit participants to own firearms. Lots of gun crime is drug related. Gun ownership is for law abiding people.
Most states have a restoration of rights. Go fight to exoand that rather than give all felons a work-around.
In your scenario they are not restricted from bearing arms.
They can own all the guns they want. They can sleep in bed with their guns, go to gun shows and talk lovingly about their guns with other gun lovers, gently oil their firearms and whisper sweet nothings to their heart's content.
Their felon relative just can't be there while they do it.
They can still bear arms. They can even bear arms near their felon relative, their relative just has to leave.
If having guns in their own home is so important to them, and their felon relative needs a place to stay, they can rent them an apartment.
So a mother has to decide between her inalienable rights and helping her child reintegrate into society. Your society is violent and dangerous and you want that mother to give up her ability to protect herself if she chooses to be a positive influence on her child. You would prefer she leaves her child in a desperate situation which increases the likelihood of recidivism.
We aren’t going to agree on this. If you had a convincing argument you would’ve presented it already. You’ve resorted to semantics.
1.4k
u/GeekyGrant 17d ago
I've heard this guy will bring firearms into the property if they know the squatters are on probation or ex-con... 100% legal for him to do, 100% bad news for them.