MOguy
Explorer
There is "due process", people can loose rights but they are allowed their day in court and they are to be presumed innocent.
For those that carry Guns and Overlanding
- Thread starter The Artisan
- Start date
- Status
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
Show me in the constitution where it says that.
MOguy
Explorer
Seriously?? Find a PDF of the US Constitution and search "due process".
If found guilty you can end up in prison and loose many of your rights. You can be found guilty and not incarcerated and still lose some rights.
Are you telling me you didn't know this? You do realize those that are incarcerated don't have their second amendment rights don't you?
Last edited:
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
The fifth. But I’d argue that a vast majority of “felons” should not fall into that category. I’d be willing to bet the founders implied rape and murder.
Matt.H
Adventurer
What if MAX possible sentence was less than 2 years?
What if MAX possible sentence was more than 2 years, but only sentenced to 6 mos/time served? Or it was CWOF/Continued With Out a Finding?
What if it was a non-violent crime?
Is he/she still a prohibited person, (PP)?
Just to be fair and show you an example of how horrible gun laws are:
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/10/fe...to-man-convicted-of-repeat-dui/#axzz5XEU20phs
Holloway attempted to purchase a firearm in 2015. He was denied because of the DUI conviction. People who have state misdemeanor convictions which can be punished with more than two years in jail, are prohibited posessors under federal law.
Holloway sued under the precedent of Binderup v. Sessions, from the Third Circuit, of which Pennsylvania is a part.
In Binderup, the Third Circuit found that minor, non-violent felonies were not sufficient to permanently remove a persons Second Amendment rights. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court refused to hear it. Thus, Binderup is binding precedent for the Third Circuit.
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Last edited:
MOguy
Explorer
It isn't up to me, it's up to the courts
MOguy
Explorer
It comes up more than just the fifth.
I do think it is scary when your rights can be taken by the government. If it is a jury trail and your rights are taken that isn't as bad and you should be guaranteed the chance to go back to court to try regain your rights.
MOguy
Explorer
This shouldn't be up to the states.
Grassland
Well-known member
Ive only read the last few pages.
As a Canadian whos laws do not protect me from using force for self defense against people (despite what they may say, you are likely to be prosecuted) I support a sane, trained, vetted civilian from being able to own, carry, and use a personal firearm.
While the USA has a wide range of issues, many stemming from the huge variance of laws from state to state, Canada has its own. The majority of firearms crime comes from unlicensed, unqualified members of society (ie criminals and gangs) using illegally obtained firearms to commit crime.
While our system of background checks and and mandatory training has merit, it has flaws as well.
My family ancestry hails from Ukraine and Ireland. Things didn't turn out too well when the Government had the arms, and the citizens did not. A properly trained and vetted civilian should have no issues carrying a firearm in a democratic, free society. (And i use those terms loosely, since we live in a corporate controlled sham of a democracy, in where your only choice is who oppresses you)
When I read of "accidents" involving firearms in the USA (and believe me the Liberal Media pushes those incidents into the news to prove how "superior" Canadian gun control is) they involve guns in purses, on top of china cabinets, and in car glove boxes. Always loaded, always unsecured. If you are carrying a firearm for defense, it needs to be UNDER YOUR CONTROL! This means on your person. Otherwise it needs to be unloaded, and secured.
Side note, how does California have such gun violence when firearms are banned by type and design, magazine capacity is restricted, and its harder to legally own a gun than in Canada?
For travel I prefer a short pump shotgun in 12 gauge. Along with following local guidelines for food prep and storage, and keeping valuables out of sight. Vigilance and herd tactics also help against animal and human threats.
As a Canadian whos laws do not protect me from using force for self defense against people (despite what they may say, you are likely to be prosecuted) I support a sane, trained, vetted civilian from being able to own, carry, and use a personal firearm.
While the USA has a wide range of issues, many stemming from the huge variance of laws from state to state, Canada has its own. The majority of firearms crime comes from unlicensed, unqualified members of society (ie criminals and gangs) using illegally obtained firearms to commit crime.
While our system of background checks and and mandatory training has merit, it has flaws as well.
My family ancestry hails from Ukraine and Ireland. Things didn't turn out too well when the Government had the arms, and the citizens did not. A properly trained and vetted civilian should have no issues carrying a firearm in a democratic, free society. (And i use those terms loosely, since we live in a corporate controlled sham of a democracy, in where your only choice is who oppresses you)
When I read of "accidents" involving firearms in the USA (and believe me the Liberal Media pushes those incidents into the news to prove how "superior" Canadian gun control is) they involve guns in purses, on top of china cabinets, and in car glove boxes. Always loaded, always unsecured. If you are carrying a firearm for defense, it needs to be UNDER YOUR CONTROL! This means on your person. Otherwise it needs to be unloaded, and secured.
Side note, how does California have such gun violence when firearms are banned by type and design, magazine capacity is restricted, and its harder to legally own a gun than in Canada?
For travel I prefer a short pump shotgun in 12 gauge. Along with following local guidelines for food prep and storage, and keeping valuables out of sight. Vigilance and herd tactics also help against animal and human threats.
brentbba
Explorer
In the most simple terms...laws don't apply to criminals...anywhere!
All the draconian laws in California only affect law abiding citizens. I'm all for a TRAINED citizen owning and carrying. Right now that even varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within California. The long term goal, IMHO, with the list of mandates on firearms it that no manufacturer will be able to comply and the only guns that will be available will be used. Case in point is the mandate for microstamping on casings here in California. It's not viable tech, yet it's the law because it exists in a lab!
waveslider
Outdoorsman
Would that imply that UNTRAINED people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves in the manner they see fit?
Explorerinil
Observer
Yup that’s true. If anyone wants to know how this works, get on YouTube, vice did an in depth documentary on Canadian gun laws.
- Status