No slippery slope
Felons are, generally, prohibited from possessing arms. Obviously, the next logical extension of that plan is to prohibit possession of arms by those who commit certain misdemeanors.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I’m sure that folks who have committed the misdemeanor of criticizing the government or politicians will be first in line to have their rights removed..
February 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Markie Marxist sez: “Parking tickets! Parking tickets! We want to prohibit private firearms ownership for people who get parking tickets! And even if they don’t.”
February 16th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“People who commit these types of crimes have already demonstrated bad judgment, and this ordinance gives us one more tool to keep guns out of their hands and off the streets of Los Angeles,” she said.
And it’ll only criminalize honest people with no effect on the gangs whatsoever. Typically libtard.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I know that somebody at some time already covered this. Oh yeah…
There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.–Ayn Rand
February 16th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Lautenberg Amendment rules include all the special “domestic dispute” misdemeanors as gun-stoppers. Legislators do not have the gumption to raise these crimes to felony status, so they redefine felony down. Many argued against those laws in the first place, since a spouse assaulting the other spouse in their shared home was already a crime, but the argument went something like “What could it hurt”?
It had an effect on police assignments.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
From the article:
“…bars possession of a gun for 10 years if convicted of certain crimes, including assault, illegal weapons sales or threatening a public official or a witness.”
These are misdemeanors?
Or, is it only these:
“carrying a concealed weapon, possession of an assault weapon, burglary and misdemeanor gang crimes.”?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Isn’t this another case of a locality pre-empting State Law yet again? I know, it’s California and all, but still, what makes LA think that what they’re proposing is remotely constitutional, even by crappy California standards?
February 17th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
What JJR said. This appears to be a blatant violation of California’s preemption law.