In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 501
Online now 1409 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I realize women are mere objects to you, but it seems like you'd at least be interested in protecting them from a personal property perspective.
I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.
Nevertheless, in 2010, they decided to lower their ambitions and backed a proposal in the Washington Legislature requiring surrender only after a full protective order was issued, restraining threatening conduct against family members or children of family members. The measure also would have made it a felony to possess a firearm while subject to such an order.
Once again, the N.R.A. and its allies strenuously objected. The group sent out a legislative alert to its members, who besieged legislators. A veteran gun-rights lobbyist flew in from Florida to meet with Representative Roger Goodman, a Democrat who had introduced the measure.
Mr. Judy, the state N.R.A. lobbyist, wrote in an e-mail to Mr. Goodman that his organization considered the current Washington law “already bad on this subject.”
OK, let's play the time machine game and ignore the fact they are currently supporting a measure that defines gun control for those "who are a threat to others or themselves."
I provided my link.... too bad you are soo wrapped up in your hate that you can't actually say you are happy they are currentlys upporting this while unhappy they previously thwarted efforts aimed at this.....
To play along further, this is current federal law,
9-60.1112 Restriction on the Possession of Firearms by Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9))
In the fall of 1996, Congress enacted an amendment (the Lautenberg Amendment) to the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 which banned the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," as defined in the statute. This new provision was codified at 18 U.S.C.§ 922(g)(9) and does not contain an exemption for law enforcement or military personnel. The Criminal Division sent all United States Attorneys' Offices a memorandum containing a discussion of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), as well as the Department's prosecution policy. The memorandum is contained in the Criminal Resource Manual at 1117.
In determining whether a particular case merits federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), prosecutors should consider the following factors:
the date of the previous conviction;
under what circumstances the firearm was obtained;
whether there are indications of current potential for violence (i.e., recent incidents of domestic violence would be a stronger argument for prosecution than if a number of years had passed since any domestic problems had occurred);
alternatives available to federal prosecution (state prosecutions, voluntary removal of the weapons);
whether the potential defendant was "on notice" that his/her possession of a firearm was illegal;
whether the potential defendant had made any false statements in obtaining the firearm.
Even if a determination is made that prosecution is not warranted, steps should be taken to assure that the firearm is removed from the possession of the individual prohibited from possessing firearms.
yeah, strict gun control, like in the UK, should mean this never happens again!
David Leeman, 60, was acquitted of murdering his wife Jennie with a semi-automatic weapon, but found guilty of manslaughter at Exeter Crown Court.
So question for you.....Was this guy diagnosed with a mental illness or not? Do you consider someone who makes a threat to be mentally ill?
Therefore, this law would not have helped in this situation.
Directly from my post
"would expand the definition of those adjudicated “mentally incompetent” to include those judged to be a danger to themselves or others"
Yes, I think it is covered. Temporary psychosis is a legitimate mental illness, albeit temporary
So it's a fine line. We obviously don't want firearms in the hands of the mentally incompetent. At the same time, if you get all riled up during an argument and supposedly mutter something threatening (and how is that proven, either intent or actuality), you can then be deemed mentally incompetent, and have your ability to own firearms taken away for life.
It's a tough call.
I get that it is a tough call..... As someone said before, maybe it was you, that any false claim would result in forfeiture of second amendment rights..... There is some detiails to figure out with the laws that support this, that is for sure...
I was simply asked to link and article that shows the NRA supports something, I did it, and boom, silence....
This post was edited by RP McMurphy 13 months ago
reading comprehension fail.... no surprise
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports