Florida 96-Year-Old Commits Murder

[mikeb302000]

http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2011-09-26/woman-96-held-shooting-nephew-death#.ToKvR-yEBQU">The St. Augustine Record reports

Stevenson is accused of killing Rice, 53, while he lay in bed. Police discovered Rice’s body about 9 p.m. after his wife reported that he was blocking her entrance to their bedroom and was cold to the touch.

Police said Rice was shot in the chest with a .357-caliber handgun, whose owner remains unknown.

A wheelchair-bound Stevenson appeared before a judge via video Monday morning and said little. She is being held in the St. Johns County jail without bail.

Yesterday, on another site, I was accused of equating the elderly and the severely handicapped with criminals. This nonsensical accusation came from http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/04/venn-diagram-of-gun-owners.html">a post I wrote once in which I made, what I thought was a common-sense suggestion, that some elderly people and some handicapped people cannot responsibly handle firearms and should be disarmed. The key word in category 5 is "incapacitated."

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly and incapacitated or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Do you think Ms. Stevenson might have benefited from disarmament? How about her nephew and his family?

Why do gun-rights folks resist these simple and obvious suggestions so? Do you think they're afraid they themselves may be swept up in a frenzy of disarming people? Is it the slippery slope spectre that has them spooked?

What's your opinion? Isn't it possible to raise the bar in order to improve the quality of those who own and use guns without trampling people's rights? I think so.

Please leave a comment.
http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

1. Lets see what you've got here.....

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.

So you're suggesting a mere misdemeanor should forever eliminate a man's rights? Incidentally, most "gun law" violations are felonies, so you're essentially saying anyone who has merely been charged with a violation.

2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.

Again, apparently the mere accusation is enough for you, since you do not require a conviction

3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.

You really have an issue with actual proof from the state don't you?

4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.

Really? So dropping your own property now becomes a reason to lose your rights?

5. anyone who has become elderly and incapacitated or otherwise physically incapacitated.

So the handicapped and elderly are simply to remain defenseless in your opinion.

Damn dude - why don't you just say "Anyone mikeb doesnt think should own a gun shouldnt have one"?

[mikeb302000]

14. Well, I guess you could say it that way.

"Anyone mikeb doesnt think should own a gun shouldnt have one."

What I'm saying is we should raise the bar on the qualifications for owning a gun. Is that so bad?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

47. I did say it that way

And yes, what you want is pretty damned bad. You advocate turning a right into a privilege which can be removed for completely arbitrary reasons.

Perhaps, you should consider the actual problem, which is not the gun but the specific individual using it.

You cannot stop crime and stupidity will never cease to exist.

[StandingInLeftField]

2. Way to go, Sparky

[rl6214]

5. I see what you did there

[petronius]

3. People who have been adjudicated mentally defective, or involuntarily

committed, are already prohibited from owning firearms. What specific physical impairment(s) do you think would justify a denial of rights, and how should that process work?

[rl6214]

4. Well first off I would ask which of these things made you an illegal gun owner

Until you address that question your opinions are absolutely worthless. You had illegal guns, you fled the country and now post your drivel from the safety of another country.

Without reading your blog, because if it was important enough to read you would really post it here, plus I am not going to increase the traffic to your blog.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.

Well that would be you, unless you were convicted and then you fled the country. How would anyone prove this?


2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.

Again, how would this be proven if never convicted?


3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.

Burden of proof...


4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.

Burden of proof...


5. anyone who has become elderly and incapacitated or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Elderly and incapacitated? So now when you get old you are disqualified from owning or using a gun?
Physically incapacitated? I am on disability, am I now disqualified from owning a gun?

Unrec for the normal reasons.

How's the UN doing today?

[ileus]

7. first off you need to ask why he changed #5 for this thread.

[mikeb302000]

15. I did that to make it clearer

My earlier version was ambiguous.

[rl6214]

20. So which of these things made you an illegal gun owner?

[petronius]

21. Then you should have been honest about it, instead of complaining about

the completely valid response you got to the original version. :eyes:

This is not the first time you've displayed a blatant lack of intellectual integrity - you need to work on that if you wish to be taken seriously as a commentator...

[Union Scribe]

30. So you're complaining people found fault with something you admit was faulty.

You aren't good at this. Prolific maybe, but not good.

[ileus]

6. "5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated. "

A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.


I realize there are others, please feel free to mention them in the comments. And I apologize for the disproportionate diagram. The AUB section should be much, much larger.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=463908&mesg_id=463989

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought something sounded fishy....looks like smoeone's been doing some editing.

[mikeb302000]

no it's not fishy at all

on the other thread someone feigned to be outraged at my suggesting that ALL elderly people should be disarmed. That was not my intention at all, so I made it clearer.

You guys love to pretend to not understand in order to pretend you're offended. I'm just trying to be clear.

[ileus]

31. key word is OR...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/28/1020858/-Florida-96-Year-Old-Commits-Murder


you changed it for our thread, but left it for DKos...

[gravity556]

83. Yep.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

"Dropped a gun"? And how are you going to ascertain that one? Mandate 24 hour CCTV surveillance in every gun owner's home?

Are you suggesting things like being butterfingered or elderly should become felonies? How's due process gonna work on that? Do they lose their rights to vote and hold public office as well?

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Oh, and let's not forget the Second Amendment-A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Now I know you have a reading comprehension problem wherein "the people" in every amendment except the second means every free citizen but somehow magically means the national guard instead of the people, but how many other rights are you going to take a crap on just because you think guns are icky?

What magical law is going to stop criminals from acquiring firearms? Registration? Sure, it might lead you back to the original owner of the gun, before it was stolen. Imprints on shell casings? Imagine the chaos if someone swung by the police practice range and gathered up some police serialized brass and mixed it with some from a public range. A ballistic fingerprint library? I don't believe a single case has been solved by one, and a barrel change on a pistol takes about 3 seconds. Make it super-duper-double-illegal to have a gun if you're a felon? Or you could make it super duper illegal to murder people! Geez, that has to be it! If you make it extra illegal, murder rates will plummet!

Registration wouldn't work anyhow, other than to inconvenience and infringe on legal gun owners. See, the supreme court ruled that criminals would be exempt from registering their guns due to their 5th amendment right against self incrimination. That's right, it would be unconstitutional to make criminals register their guns. Don't believe me? Research it yourself. And while you're researching that, take a month or two and learn something about current firearms laws. Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick, dude. Learn your material prior to entering a debate.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Rights are rights... only due process of law can curtail one's rights.

[mikeb302000]

17. Who said we need to eliminate due process? nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. You did.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.

Legal conviction/disqualification of rights involves due process of law... the concepts are mutually inclusive of the due process system. You specifically advocate removing rights from people who are NOT convicted/disqualified. Therefore, you are advocating the removal of rights without due process. The only other possibility of your suggestion in the OP is that you are advocating against a presumption of innocence - where the accused must prove their own innocence.
So which concept are you proposing... removal of due process or removal of the presumption of innocence?

[Atypical Liberal]

9. That's not what you originally said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=463908&mesg_id=463989

This is what you originally said:

5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Note how this is different from what you are now saying:

5. anyone who has become elderly and incapacitated or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Your original assertion was that anyone who has become elderly is equivalent to your first four bullet points, which include non-convicted criminals (such as you yourself admit to being) and drug addicts.

Do you think Ms. Stevenson might have benefited from disarmament?

It would appear that the wheels were turning to do just that. Unfortunately the state did not act fast enough:

"A Children and Families worker went to the home Sept. 8 for a report that Stevenson, not Rice, had been mistreated, Fricke said. The worker left after Stevenson said she was fine and threatened to use a gun if he trespassed, Fricke said. The agency returned the next day to attempt to hospitalize the woman under the state’s Baker Act, though the outcome of that effort remains unclear, records show."

The Baker Act would have allowed for an involuntary hospitalization for a mental health examination, which could have resulted in an involuntary commitment to an institution, which would have made her ineligible to legally own firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act

Why do gun-rights folks resist these simple and obvious suggestions so?

Based on the article, I have no problem with the laws currently in place to handle these situations.

[iverglas]

43. as disingenuous as it was the first time around

This is what you originally said:

5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Note how this is different from what you are now saying:

5. anyone who has become elderly and incapacitated or otherwise physically incapacitated.

That's called clarification, for the benefit of those who pretended not to understand the meaning the first time ... and the benefit of the reading public so they don't have to wade through the disingenuous crap.

Anybody claiming that "elderly" in the first version did not imply a condition that makes a person an unsuitable candidate for firearms possession, and not mere chronological age, needs to present some minimal basis for believing that the poster who wrote it actually advocated disqualification on that basis. Nobody managed to do that.

[jmg257]

49. I certainly thought he meant "the elderly"...not just those 'incapacitated by age'.

My basis for believing this poster would actually advocate such disqualifications is his obvious vileness towards most anyone who wishes to carry or own or shoot guns.

Of course he once again didn't define "elderly", or "physically incapacitated" for that matter, so it left it rather vague as to what his cut-off points were.

He since stated that is not what he meant, so it is good to see his clarification here...based on his history, he should spell things out better to avoid further misunderstandings of his intent.

[iverglas]

50. then explain

"anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated"

What function does "otherwise" perform in that text?

If the text had read:

"anyone who has become elderly or physically incapacitated"

someone might have had a point.

My mum is 81 and does not regard herself as "elderly"; nor do I, nor did the 67-year-old service station owner who tried (very politely) to pick her up a couple of weeks ago. ;) We really do all read "elderly" as meaning something different from "old" or "senior".


based on his history, he should spell things out better to avoid further misunderstandings of his intent

I would say it is more like:

based on his experience with his words being misrepresented and tortured, he should be careful not to allow any ambiguity, or anything that anyone could conceivably claim to have read as ambiguous, to slip into his writing

I know I learned that lesson long ago, but it hasn't spared me from having my words misrepresented and tortured regularly even so.

[jmg257]

69. 'Otherwise' would say that elderly were physically incapacitated.

and so like criminals are a danger and unfit to own arms.

Reading mikeb's stuff...it seemed a typical notion of his.

First thing I thought of was my Pop, who is elderly and a little less physically capable then he used to be...wasn't happy with the opinion (apparent opinion) that he be equated to illegal gun owners / criminals.

Mike might learn, or might not, or might not care, or might plead the victim....and we may learn not to assume the worst of his posts.


edit typos

[iverglas]

73. and since that isn't the case

'Otherwise' would say that elderly were physically incapacitated.

... well, I guess you just can't think of any other way to interpret the text.

Civil discourse calls for not arbitrarily and capriciously ascribing ill will to one's interlocutors.

That's all this amounts to.

First thing I thought of was my Pop, who is elderly and a little less physically capable then he used to be...wasn't happy with the opinion (apparent opinion) that he be equated to illegal gun owners / criminals.

Well, I guess probably his mental faculties aren't actually impaired, he's just someone like most others hereabouts who like to pretend that things are what they aren't.

For anyone not getting it: nobody equates an incapacitated person with a criminal. And you can tell your Pop from me that I think his pretense that this is what has been done is ugly.

and we may learn not to assume the worst of his posts

Nah, that would be impossible. Precisely because you don't do that. You ascribe ill will to him for your own peculiar reasons. That's not "assuming" anything.

[jmg257]

82. Civil discourse, yes...one should not assume the worst.

well, I guess you just can't think of any other way to interpret the text.

I could, but I didn't. Based on numerous previous postings, there was no reason to think to give mike any benefit of the doubt that he hadn't said exactly what he meant.

Civil discourse calls for not arbitrarily and capriciously ascribing ill will to one's interlocutors.

Civil discourse does, yes. Which is why when questioned in another thread, where mikeb 1st clarified his Venn Diagram re: the elderly, etc., I was gladdened to see I had apparently interpreted his musings about the elderly and handicapped incorrectly. And a good example of where "spelling it out" would have helped the matter, and left NO doubt to what he was actually trying to say (or why he said it the way that he did).

Well, I guess probably his mental faculties aren't actually impaired, he's just someone like most others hereabouts who like to pretend that things are what they aren't.

MY take on it - not my Pop's, who wouldn't care to know how to find DU let alone worry about someone posting gun control opinions on it. He has more critical things to worry about. MY distaste was mb's apparent equating of my Pop, and other elderly folks, handicapped etc. with criminals, and as unfit to own guns.

And you can tell your Pop from me that I think his pretense that this is what has been done is ugly.

MY pretense, as stated. And it was a bit ugly, as stated, and why. And angry at least, but not nearly as ugly as the notion put forth by mikeb seemed to be. I do take your thoughts on this matter serious enough (and your opinions and ideas generally, which are usually very thought-invoking!:) ) which is why I replied.

You ascribe ill will to him for your own peculiar reasons. That's not "assuming" anything.

I had no reasons to ascribe ill will other then what I read. And his posts are consistently ugly in their aspersions on most gun owners, shooters etc. Elderly gun owners? Handicapped?...why would they be thought of any better? I blamed it mostly to his wanting to call attention to his blog...chattering and the like to call attention. But then I see mikeb's hobby is "gun control"...so his obsession with guns and control is understandable. His opinions of most gun owners, shooting sports etc. always seems a bit harsh though, and are often presented in a 'flame-baiting' manner.

Ugly? OK. MY pretense? Of course, based on what I read.
Mistaken? Perhaps, at least in this case.

edit typos clarification

[iverglas]

84. post 78

for you and anyone else intent on perpetuating this reprehensible "equating" meme.

[jmg257]

86. No intent of perpetuating it. He clarified his comments,

no neeed for attempts at further clarification of what he meant by someone else.

[iverglas]

90. no need for further misrepresentation of what I was saying

I was NOT clarifying what he wrote.

I am saying that everyone perpetuating this meme that when a legislature treats different things the same way it is "equating" them is behaving reprehensibly.

Nothing whatsoever to do with anything Mike said.

Everything to do with the behaviour of the adherents of that repeated meme.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Since it is not a fixed punishment, but rather a disqualification

I totally agree with you here. It is not equating them.

[iverglas]

95. uh oh

You'd better be careful of hitching your cart to my horse. ;)

I try not to agree with you publicly too often so as not to damage your credibility!

But really, eh?

As I said elsewhere, neither 5-year-olds nor repeatedly convicted drunk drivers are qualified to drive a car. The legislation in question does not "equate" children and criminal drunkards.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Because of the ageist implication that "Elderly" = "Physically Incapacitated"

It's really plain english.

[iverglas]

91. except that everybody knows it doesn't

so it's plain to the naked eye that it took some tortured twisting to pretend that somebody implied that it did.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. I disagree.

His clarification is 'better', but the original statment, read in plain english, states specifically that; an equivocation of being elderly, as being in some way incapacitated.

[iverglas]

96. "an equivocation of being elderly, as being in some way incapacitated"

But as I said -- everyone knows that equivalence does not exist.

So why would anyone claim to believe that Mike was asserting it??

Let me try an example.

- They are suspicious of everyone who is Middle Eastern or otherwise dark-skinned.

Everyone knows that not all Middle Easterners are dark-skinned.

But no one has any difficulty understanding that the reference here is to the fact that some Middle Easterners are dark-skinned.

Would anyone really read that and start screeching about how not all Middle Easterners are dark-skinned and the writer has just stereotyped all Middle Easterners?

No. Everyone would realize what the point being made was, and anyone who started carrying on in that manner would be scorned.

That, in addition to the fact that we all know that "elderly" is commonly used to refer to someone who is not merely chronologically old, but also enfeebled, whether physically or mentally or both.

[mikeb302000]

52. What "vileness" would that be?

Is anyone who disagrees with you vile?

Is my wanting licensing and registration and background checks on all sales vile?

How about my blaming the gun owner when the 2-year-old gets ahold of the gun, is that vile?

[jmg257]

70. Nope. Those examples are not vile at all. nt

[Marengo]

100. I think what is causing the suspicion here...

Is the use of the term elderly if general incapacitation, regardless of age, is the disqualifying condition. Why a reference to chronological age, which elderly certainly is, if is not intended to be a condition?

[rrneck]

10. The OP is a fine example of disastercapitalism. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Then how would you go about it?

Isn't it possible to raise the bar in order to improve the quality of those who own and use guns without trampling people's rights? I think so.

Today, the mental health bar for people being ineligible to legally own firearms is set by the following conditions:

1) You cannot have ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent.
2) You cannot ever have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Both of these actions respect the rights of citizens through the due process of law.

How would you go about raising the bar without trampling on people's rights?

[one-eyed fat man]

16. That's just it...

You can't trample what doesn't exist. King Mikey doesn't think anyone has a right to own a gun. As far as he is concerned every gun owner is already a criminal or about to become one.

[mikeb302000]

19. where do you get that from?

Don't you have enough integrity to argue against what I really do say? What kind of bullshit is that saying I don't "think anyone has a right to own a gun?"

[one-eyed fat man]

34. This IS your work.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RweDA7XftZk/TbdFJ0ZGp_I/AAAAAAAAGH4/c0jFThzjGRs/s1600/Mikeb302000+post.jpg

A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Looks like you don't leave room for anyone but yourself, and has been pointed out elsewhere, you are an admitted gun criminal.

So who is left?

[petronius]

41. "Don't you have enough integrity...?" It takes a pretty un-self-aware person

to post that in the very same thread where he's been caught flat-out falsifying a previous discussion... :eyes:

[mikeb302000]

53. "caught falsifying?" if I didn't know you already

I'd wonder if that's a joke. But I know what it is. It's another lying false accusation that you can use to pretend outrage.

What is it that really bothers you, that I don't want dangerous people to have access to guns? Why would that bother you so much?

[petronius]

68. Are you calling me a liar? I thought we didn't do that here

Of course, if you really thought I was lying you'd try and prove it - but sadly for you the posts are still up and my description of your actions is perfectly accurate...

[iverglas]

74. no, I believe you were the one doing that

I'm sure seeing you calling him a liar in your previous post. "Flat-out falsifying". No room for interpretation there.

"alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead."

That's an allegation of making an intentional false statement. We know what that is.

[petronius]

75. The rules here are funny that way, as I'm sure you know. Correctly pointing out that

a post contains false information is apparently OK. Unsupportable accusations of lying are apparently not.

And, as I'm certain you know despite your desperate attempts to spin it away, Mikey faked it... :hi:

[iverglas]

77. indeed

And an accusation of falsifying is not the same as a statement that something is false. I'm sure you're bright enough to know exactly what you said and to have meant exactly what it meant.

[gravity556]

85. How about you do a little research and learn what the federal gun laws actually are?

Instead of spamming the board with misinformation and misrepresentation? Do they not have google in Italy? Start with CFR27. Then, when you're done with that, maybe learn about what the different state laws are prior to bad mouthing them ala your "Typical Arizona Gun Owner" smear piece?

[SteveM]

12. Discriminatory and ambiguous at best...

"5. anyone who has become elderly and incapacitated or otherwise physically incapacitated."

A person can become elderly and incapacitated (confined to a chair? Bedridden? Must use a scooter?) and not be mentally incapacitated. Should they have their rights restricted? I'm not sure (and I don't think you are either) why you muddle it further by adding "...otherwise physically incapacitated."

Be aware that ANYONE who is "physically incapacitated" should seriously consider arming themselves if self-defense is a great concern. What does age have to do with it?

You need to think through your prohibitionist policies more clearly before pushing for restrictions on the Second Amendment.

[mikeb302000]

54. pick pick pick, what's your point?

are you saying no one should ever be disqualified ever? Did you ever see Stephen Hawking? Should a guy in that shape own and use guns in your opinion? What about an elderly alzheimer's patient, have you ever known one of those? Guns for them too?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

62. Both of those are rather extreme examples.

Hawking, for example, very likely could not use a firearm. I couldn't care less if he had one or not.

An elderly Alzheimer's patient would likely be under the care of someone else, and as such, would be pretty well monitored. Perhaps the patient shouldn't have access to firearms, but that does not mean his property should be confiscated.

Those extreme situations are not what you described though, so perhaps you should think things through just a bit more....OK, a LOT more.

[gejohnston]

79. How absurd

Alzheimers, you have a point. Mr. Hawking certainly has mental capacity to use them appropriately. Physically, he can not pick up a pencil. Therefore, he can not use a gun or a pencil. It does not matter if he owns them or not (other than British law of course.)

[Hoopla Phil]

13. No. "some" is not the same as "anyone".

You want "anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated." to not own guns and HAVE equated them with criminals. Perhaps you missed this posting on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=464210&mesg_id=464210
Please leave a comment.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Yet Mike is now claiming "we have always been at war with Eastasia.", so to speak

A fine example of Stalinoid revisionism.

[mikeb302000]

55. huh? nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

67. It's a reference to...

...1984 by George Orwell. If you've not read it, click this link: http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984.pdf

It will take you to a PDF copy of the book you can download and read at your leisure. I highly recommend it.

[gravity556]

88. Not all that well read, eh?

So, mikeb, what exactly did you do that made you an illegal gun owner? Why is it OK for you to break the law but not the rest of the plebians? I can think of a few real reasons for someone to lose their rights, and not a one of them is pretty. Was it a felony? Did you buy stolen guns? Get smacked with the Lautenberg amendment?

How about you blog about that? I'll bet you'd get alllll kinds of traffic to your blog to find that information out. Even I would click your blind link. Come on, confession is good for the soul.

[iverglas]

78. this is simply vile filth

You want "anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated." to not own guns and HAVE equated them with criminals.

It's false. It is flatly false. And you know it is.

Treating X and Y similarly for a particular purpose IS NOT "equating them". And you know it.

Five-year-old children may not hold licences to drive motor vehicles.
People with 10 convictions for drunk driving may not hold licences to drive motor vehicles.
People with severe visual impairment may not hold icences to drive motor vehicles.

Are five-year-old children being equated to habitual drunks who disregard the safety of everyone around them?

No.

And if I advocated that five-year-old children, habitual drunk drivers and the severely visually impaired not be granted licences to drive motor vehicles, and you told me I had equated children and habitual drunk drivers, I would tell you exactly what you were.

It's pretty fucking simple.

[spin]

18. Let's look at your "phsically incapacitated" requirement and some other foolish ideas you mention .

You say:
"This nonsensical accusation came from a post I wrote once in which I made, what I thought was a common-sense suggestion, that some elderly people and some handicapped people cannot responsibly handle firearms and should be disarmed. The key word in category 5 is "incapacitated."


Here is the definition of incapacitated under Iowa code:

709.1A INCAPACITATION.
As used in this chapter, "incapacitated" means a person is
disabled or deprived of ability, as follows:
1. "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is
temporarily incapable of apprising or controlling the person's own
conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or
intoxicating substance.
2. "Physically helpless" means that a person is unable to
communicate an unwillingness to act because the person is
unconscious, asleep, or is otherwise physically limited.
3. "Physically incapacitated" means that a person has a
bodily impairment or handicap that substantially limits the person's
ability to resist or flee. emphasis added
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=709.1A

Since I have degenerative disk disease and am a candidate for a hip replacement I would qualify under Iowa law as physically incapacitated as my ability to resist or flee is definitely impaired. So if I lived in Iowa, you might be able to take my firearm away because I can't resist or flee from an attacker. Now that makes real sense.

***

Many years ago I dropped an unloaded revolver on a concrete driveway. GASP! My God! I should immediately lose my right to own or legally carry a concealed firearm according to you. Of course the revolver was a modern Ruger with a transfer bar to prevent a discharge if dropped so it would not have fired even it had been loaded. Modern firearms will not discharge when dropped unless defective.

***

When my daughter was a toddler I spanked her on the butt when she tried to pull a pot filled with boiling water off the stove. Some people would say that spanking is child abuse. Therefore should I lose my right to own and legally carry a firearm?

***

There are days when I am watching the Steelers play football that I consume more than two beers. In fact last Sunday while I was watching the Steelers fumble and bumble their way to a 3 point win over the Colts, I knocked off an entire six pack. Since I normally consume two beers a day, some would say that I have an addiction to alcohol and you might believe that I should lose my legal right to own or carry firearms. Of course, during the game all my firearms were safely locked up and I have no intention of handling a firearm when I am consuming any quantity of alcohol nor do I get behind the wheel of a car. There were sober adults in the home when I was watching the game in case a car had to be driven or had an emergency requiring the use of a firearm for legitimate self defense occurred.

***

How exactly do you define negligent discharge?

A negligent discharge (ND) is a discharge of a firearm involving culpable carelessness. In judicial and military technical terms, a negligent discharge is a chargeable offence. A number of armed forces automatically consider any accidental discharge to be negligent discharge, under the assumption that a trained soldier has control of his weapon at all times. This is the case notably in the United States Army,<1> Canadian Army, the Royal Air Force and the British Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_discharge

In my 40 years of shooting I have met a large number of shooters who have had accidental discharges. I've had two on the shooting range. One involved a single action .44 Magnum single action revolver which belonged to a friend and was modified to have an EXTEMELY light trigger pull of under one pound. As I handled the weapon and was acquiring a sight picture on the target, I barely touched the trigger and the weapon discharged. I believe the round hit the target at 25 yards but outside of the scoring rings. The second incident occurred when I was firing a friend's double-action/single-action 9mm pistol on the range. The initial double action trigger pull is hard and long but then the gun goes into single action mode and the second trigger pull is much shorter and light. I believe I missed the target on the second shot because of the sudden change in the trigger pull weight, but the weapon was safely pointed down range. Should I lose my right to own firearms? (I did learn to personally dislike that style of pistol.)

A wise shooter once told me there are only two classes of shooters -- those who have had an accidental discharge and those who will. As I mentioned I know many shooters who have had an AD, but fortunately they had their weapons pointed in a safe direction. One of the basic safety rules is to never allow the muzzle of your weapon, loaded or unloaded, to point at something you do not wish to destroy.

The most egregious example I can remember involved a firearms instructor for a police department who while clearing his Glock .40 caliber pistol after a range session managed to shoot a Pepsi machine in the lobby of the range. One month later this fool managed to kill a TV set in the lobby. He no longer was a firearms instructor after the second incident but was still a police officer. There was a sand trap in the lobby which was placed there so you could load or unload your firearms safely but he neglected to use it.

One older WWII vet who had fired .45 automatics for over 50 years returned home from the range and had an accidental discharge while he was clearing his .45. He had the muzzle pointed at a wall and the round went through the wall and put a hole in his washing machine in the utility room. He lived alone and the round hit the machine high enough that while he was unable to run the machine with a large load, it worked fine with a small load. Should he lose his right to own firearms? (The house he lived in was a concrete block structure and therefore the discharged round never endangered anyone in his neighbor's home.)

If you chose to reply please do not include any blind links as I refuse to click on them.

[mikeb302000]

23. You say you've had two "accidental" discharges.

Well, I don't believe that. There is no such thing. What you had are two negligent discharges, and you'll probably have a few more before you're done.

If my ideas were law, and a judge of my liking were to look at your case, you never would have had a chance to have that second NEGLIGENT incident. I guess you were lucky you didn't kill someone because a guy who is negligent enough to violate one of the Four Rules of Gun Safety often violates more than one, and only luck can save him from a manslaughter charge.

[Katya Mullethov]

25. Think about it

What is one allowed to point their weapon at ?

[rl6214]

35. So what is your illegal gun usage?

You are willing to be so harsh on a person that has one ND why are you still walking around a free man? Or is that why you fled to italy?

[mikeb302000]

56. "fled to Italy?" You've got some imagination. nt

[rl6214]

81. I've got some imagination?

Pot calling the kettle black.

You yourself have in your posts said "I imagine". I'm not going to look them up but you have posted this in more than one thread. Your entire rant is from your imagination because you have absolutey nothing to support your assertions.

[spin]

36. Did you notice that both incidences occurred on a range and my weapon was pointed downrange?

Therefore I was not "lucky" that my two accidental discharges didn't kill anyone as there was ZERO chance of that. Technically, many shooters would not qualify what I described as accidental discharges but as merely missed shots. I just don't make excuses, therefore I class both incidents as an AD.

I'm agree that if your ideas were law you would take my firearms away if you were the judge and you would find excuses an excuse to take anyone's firearms away if they were unlucky enough to end up in your court. You would be a true tyrant and would thoroughly enjoy your job. Fortunately you don't even live in the United States.

As far as your lecture on gun safety exactly what rule did I violate?

Rule # 1
Treat all guns as if they are loaded.

I obviously didn't violated this rule as I damn well knew the firearms were loaded.

Rule # 2

Never let the muzzle of a gun point at anything you do not want to destroy or kill.

Nope. I didn't violate this rule either. I was on a pistol range and the muzzle of my weapon was pointed downrange at a paper target.

Rule # 3

Keep your finger straight and off the trigger.

At all times you must keep your trigger finger straight, and off the trigger. Only once you have aimed and have your target in the sights should you permit your finger to gently rest on the trigger. This prevents accidental discharges should you stumble, trip, or be subjected to some unexpected event.

In both cases I had acquired the target and was in the process of squeezing the trigger. The extremely light pull of the hair trigger in the first incident caused me to fire and miss the scoring rings of the target at 25 yards. In the second incident, the first round went into the center of the target but the fact that I was caught off guard with the much shorter and lighter trigger pull of the second shot was caused by my unfamiliarity with a double-action, single-action pistol. This caused me to miss the target at 75 yards. At a closer range such as 15 or 21 feet I might well have hit the "kill" zone of a standard full sized silhouette target. If I ever owned such a weapon, which I never will, I would master the trigger pull difference between the first and second shot. Realistically if I ever have to make a shot for what I consider as self defense at 25 yards, I will have a lot of explaining to do to law enforcement.

That's why you practice on a range where your shooting endangers no one. You practice to master a weapon and learn its idiosyncrasies. In both cases this was the first time I had fired the particular weapon and the first shots I had ever tried. I continued to fire both firearms and encounter no further problems.

Rule # 4

Be absolutely sure of your target, and what is behind it.

Since I was on a pistol range in both cases I did not violate this rule.

[mikeb302000]

57. why do you call them "accidental discharges?" nt

[spin]

80. Simple, because the gun fired before I wanted it to ...

the rounds endangered no one nor were any safety rules violated, I was and still am upset with myself that the weapons fired.

As a matter of fact I get real upset with myself if I have a flyer while target shooting that ends up in the 7 ring of a target at 25 yards. that means that I totally lost my concentration.

[Common Sense Party]

38. So let it be written. So let it be done.

Re Michele has spoken!

"No guns for you!"

[ileus]

39. Wrong there are AD's....

I inherited a winchester "scoremaster" bolt action 22 when I was 16 (1986). About every 4th time you'd close the bolt it would discharge. A trip the the smith and it's been a solid gun ever since.


I'm sure you're aware of the Remington bolt action problems from last year also...

[mikeb302000]

58. you're right, they are accidental not negligent. nt

[gravity556]

98. Oh man, I had an SKS for a while,

and it got a bit of something stuck in the firing pin channel. Soon as I dropped the bolt it ran away. Fortunately, I was following all the safety rules and was at a range, but for a second and a half it was very exciting.

For your edification, mikey, an accidental discharge occurs when a part of the the gun mechanically fails, causing it to fire without any input from the shooter-a worn disconnector might let a sear slip or something to that effect.

A negligent discharge is what happens when someone sticks their booger hook inside the trigger guard and pulls the trigger "accidentally".

[PavePusher]

40. That's a lot of supposition for such a concrete solution.

But I suppose it should not be surprising coming from the fellow who said that children can not be educated, and seems to beleive the same of adults.

One wonders how you've survived your life thus far... or are you the exception to your assumptions?

[Straw Man]

45. The Four Rules.

As I handled the weapon and was acquiring a sight picture on the target, I barely touched the trigger and the weapon discharged. I believe the round hit the target at 25 yards but outside of the scoring rings.
...

The second incident occurred when I was firing a friend's double-action/single-action 9mm pistol on the range. ... I believe I missed the target on the second shot because of the sudden change in the trigger pull weight, but the weapon was safely pointed down range.

If my ideas were law, and a judge of my liking were to look at your case, you never would have had a chance to have that second NEGLIGENT incident. I guess you were lucky you didn't kill someone because a guy who is negligent enough to violate one of the Four Rules of Gun Safety often violates more than one, and only luck can save him from a manslaughter charge.

The Four Rules

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Which one did he violate, pray tell? He missed his target but hit the backstop because he was following the Four Rules: gun was pointing in a safe direction, sights were on target (although we could quibble about the "decision to shoot"), and he knew his target and what was beyond. There was no jeopardy at any time. That's not luck; it's safe practice through observance of the Four Rules.

You have obviously not done any target shooting. Target triggers are notoriously light, but can be used safely on the range because the gun is always pointed in a safe direction before the trigger is touched. A premature trigger release in this scenario is a non-event.

[pipoman]

46. "a judge of my liking'

:rofl:

You mean a judge with no regard for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, huh? What a blog pimp'n laugh riot..

[gravity556]

89. And in what fairy tale land are you prince of?

Your ideas will never, ever become law. Because they're crap ideas to begin with.

[iverglas]

44. let's look at what you're quoting from

First off, note that the passage you quote from an Iowa statute starts out:

"As used in this chapter, 'incapacitated' means ..."

You do know that a legislature can define a word as meaning anything it likes for the purposes of a statute it appears in, right? Of course you do.

So you know that a legislative definition of a word for the purposes of a particular statute has no effect whatsoever for any purpose other than the purposes of that statute.

So, what is the purpose for which "incapacitated" is defined in what you quoted? I knew what that was as soon as I read what you posted. The provision immediately before what you posted reads as follows:

709.1 SEXUAL ABUSE DEFINED.
Any sex act between persons is sexual abuse by either of the
persons when the act is performed with the other person in any of the
following circumstances:

1. The act is done by force or against the will of the other. If
the consent or acquiescence of the other is procured by threats of
violence toward any person or if the act is done while the other is
under the influence of a drug inducing sleep or is otherwise in a
state of unconsciousness, the act is done against the will of the
other.

2. Such other person is suffering from a mental defect or
incapacity which precludes giving consent, or lacks the mental
capacity to know the right and wrong of conduct in sexual matters.

3. Such other person is a child.

Why on earth would you quote from a definition of incapacity for the purpose of giving consent to a sexual act when the issue is incapacity for the purpose of firearms possession? Did you actually not know that was what you were doing? Sorry, but if that's the case, you may not have intentionally misled, but you have negligently misled; the onus was on you to make sure you were offering something actually relevant as the basis of your argument.


Since I have degenerative disk disease and am a candidate for a hip replacement I would qualify under Iowa law as physically incapacitated as my ability to resist or flee is definitely impaired.

You might qualify as incapacitated for the purpose of consenting to a sexual act and only for that purpose, in terms of the effect of the legislation you quoted.

So if I lived in Iowa, you might be able to take my firearm away because I can't resist or flee from an attacker. Now that makes real sense.

So no, you have absolutely no basis for saying that, no basis whatsoever.

Neither Mike nor anyone else has proposed that the criteria that are used for determining capacity to consent to a sexual act be used for determining eligibility for firearms possession.

Your claims in this post are absolutely dreadful.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Why did you feel the need to start a new thread when ones already exist here at DU on this?

Unreced for duplication

[rrneck]

27. Could you please

make this inane bullshit a little more difficult to smack down?

It's just boring.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. 43 years ago I fell and dropped my shotgun. No discharge.

I got a natsy cut from the fall onto barbed wire that has left a scar that I still have. So because a loooong time ago I fell with my shotgun you would ban me forever from having a gun?

[ileus]

33. sorry send yours to me....The king states you can't be trusted.

PM me and I'll send you my shipping address.

[Union Scribe]

29. "on another site" you mean this one? DU?

Can't you even edit a little when you hit paste to blogspam our site?

[ileus]

32. He did edit it...

Our site from above.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly and incapacitated or otherwise physically incapacitated.

DKos


1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/28/1020858/-Florida-96-Year-Old-Commits-Murder

[mikeb302000]

59. you're right I should have cleaned that up nt

[azureblue]

37. Mike does these hit and run posts

Mike, I will ask you this: Here is a list of your points for people who should not own guns:

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly and incapacitated or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Now please tell us how you will determine how to put people on this list? Your point makes no sense at all, and is incredibly ignorant, considering there is no data base that tells what a person may do before the fact. All of the points you list have one thing in common- "what if" . This list, reworded, could could just as well be applied to who can accept pizza delivery.

Mikey, your problem goes beyond gun issues. It is now just throwing stuff up, no matter how specious or unsupported, and seeing what the response is. IOW your creds have gone down the tubes.

Please Leave a comment, Mikey, or just stop making dumb posts. Don't waste you time until you can come up with something better.

[mikeb302000]

60. you want to talk about how to implement?

I thought we were still arguing about whether or not it's right to disqualify people for those five things. Are you saying you agree it's right but are questioning the feasibility of putting it into practice?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

66. None of your suggestions

even remotely justify the removal of a right. You're talking about a rather draconian punishment for what are effectively arbitrary reasons requiring no proof.

Apply the same restrictions to the exercise of the 1st Amendment and see if you're OK with it. If not, then you'll understand the reasons people have a problem with them as applied to 2nd Amendment rights.

The fact that a weapon can be misused for harm is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the legal protection and status of the right. I'm sorry you do not seem to be able to wrap your head around that, but that's something you have to work out.

[iverglas]

42. and now back to the subject at hand

Did anybody read the actual article? (It's dated September 26. This post about it isn't a duplicate of anything.)

A St. Augustine woman, 96, is charged with Sunday’s fatal shooting of her nephew who feared her moodiness and grew frustrated when he said authorities failed to help, a neighbor and the victim’s boss said.

But city police Cmdr. Steve Fricke said his agency and the Department of Children and Families had no basis to remove Amanda Rice Stevenson from Johnny Rice’s John Street home in West Augustine. Fricke also said there are no police records of Rice complaining about his aunt.

A Children and Families worker went to the home Sept. 8 for a report that Stevenson, not Rice, had been mistreated, Fricke said. The worker left after Stevenson said she was fine and threatened to use a gun if he trespassed, Fricke said. The agency returned the next day to attempt to hospitalize the woman under the state’s Baker Act, though the outcome of that effort remains unclear, records show.

... Rice’s next door neighbor, Karen Soukiasian, said that Rice and his wife told her Stevenson had previously threatened to kill them. Soukiasian said the Rices failed to get help from police and social service workers.

... The social worker called police, but no further action was taken at the scene. The social worker planned to contact Stevenson’s family about concerns over the gun threat, Fricke said.

What purpose would be served by initiating an entire legal proceeding to have an individual like Stevenson declared incompetent and/or committed for mental health care, so she could be disqualified from firearms acquisition? (Do either of those things result in forefeiture anyway, or just in ineligibility to purchase?)

If a licensing process were in place, her licence to possess firearms could be revoked on the simple ground that she threatened to use a firearm against someone, for pete's sake, not to mention the combination of circumstances that made her too obviously not a candidate for firearms possession.

[mikeb302000]

61. thanks man, you are in a class of your own. nt

[Iktomiwicasa]

63. "her licence to possess firearms could be revoked on the simple ground ...

...that she threatened to use a firearm against someone."

So just hearsay is sufficient?

[iverglas]

64. "So just hearsay is sufficient?"

Why don't you ask someone who said it was?

Any chance you actually know what "hearsay" is?

[petronius]

65. The unstated assumption you're making is that the standards for revoking a license

would (should?) be less strict than the current process. The end result would be the same - denial of a right - so why would it necessarily be any less stringent or easier to make that happen under a licensing scheme than through the court system?

At the same time, a licensing system would require bureaucratic overhead and expense, so 'all that effort' would need to be made at one end of the process or the other (or actually, both). The story in the OP isn't an argument for requiring a universal licensing system, because nothing in the story would have been avoided or minimized under a fair and rights-respecting licensing scheme...

[one-eyed fat man]

71. That has always been one of "benefits" of a licensing scheme

Ask any one who holds an Airman's Certificate. There are a myriad of ways the FAA can destroy your livelihood because they can revoke or suspend your license. None of the protections afforded the accused under traditional concepts of due process apply. Accepting the license means you accept their rules, and the rule is you are guilty until proven otherwise and sometimes not even that's not enough.

If you fight them, and win, the FAA lawyers get to appeal to their boss, the FAA Administrator. Persecuting you has no affect on the FAA lawyers paycheck or the FAA's budget. You, on the other hand, have to pay your attorney.

Even if you eventually prevail, wend your way through the administrative appeals process, past the full NTSB until you can finally take the case to Federal Court where real rules of evidence apply you will likely still wind up buying you house again as you took out a second mortgage to pay your lawyer.

So when faced with a 90 day suspension of your license the math becomes is it worth spending three years pay to keep from losing 3 months wages.

"...a fair and rights-respecting licensing scheme..." does not even exist on paper, much less in practice.

Ask Bob Hoover.

[iverglas]

76. then grow a fucking backbone down there

None of the protections afforded the accused under traditional concepts of due process apply.

First, due process applies to CRIMINAL matters. Not to licensing.

Criminal matters are matters in which an individual is in jeopardy of PUNISHMENT. Denial or revocation of a licence is not in itself PUNISHMENT.

Nonetheless, there are rules of fairness that apply to administrative actions. At least there sure are where I'm at. What's the problem down there? Nobody heard of simple things like audi alteram partem, for starters -- the right to be heard? Procedural fairness? Ring no bells at all?

Here's a nice review of procedural fairness where I'm at:

www.nelligan.ca/e/pdf/Procedural_Fairness_in_Ontario.pdf

The content of common law procedural fairness is generally divided into two separate categories. The first finds its origin in the Latin term audi alteram partem, meaning “hear the other side” or more commonly, “the right to be heard.” As will become evident later in this paper, the right to be heard has been interpreted quite broadly, conferring on individuals a variety of procedural entitlements. ...

Procedural fairness has come to be regarded as the “bedrock of administrative law.” ...

... The values underlying the duty of procedural fairness relate to the principle that the individual or individuals affected should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, and have decision affecting their rights, interests, or privileges made using a fair, impartial and open process, appropriate to the statutory, institutional and social context of the decisions.

The Court further emphasized that procedural fairness is flexible and entirely dependent on context. In order to determine the degree of procedural fairness owed in a given in case, the court set out five factors to be considered:

(1) the nature of the decision;
(2) the nature of the statutory scheme;
(3) the importance of the decision to the affected person;
(4) the presence of any legitimate expectations; and
(5) the choice of procedure made by the decision-maker.

In many of the cases, including some of those set out below, one or two of these factors become dominant in determining the degree of procedural fairness. Further it is important to note that reviewing courts do not defer to administrative bodies on matters of procedural fairness. Where a breach is found, the decision will generally be rendered void by the reviewing Court and will require reconsideration by the administrative body. ...

How do you compare?

(re pilot's licences) Accepting the license means you accept their rules, and the rule is you are guilty until proven otherwise and sometimes not even that's not enough.

There is NO finding of guilt or non-guilt in an administrative procedure. These are important matters, and feigning (or actually being) ignorant of the issues involved is just not on.

Licensing DOES NOT involve findings of guilt or innocence.

Even if you eventually prevail, wend your way through the administrative appeals process, past the full NTSB until you can finally take the case to Federal Court where real rules of evidence apply you will likely still wind up buying you house again as you took out a second mortgage to pay your lawyer.

And if a licensing authority is found to have acted arbitrarily or capriciously, presumably appropriate costs will be awarded against it and appropriate compensation ordered.

How might this situation be different from any other in which an individual is affected by another party's actions and has to seek a remedy? There are no guarantees in this world that nobody is going to run over your dog or fail to pay a debt owing or do anything else that might make it necessary to take legal action. Government agencies need to be held to high standards in that regard indeed, and exemplary damages and actual costs are the sort of mechanisms that remind them of that. One case allegedly illustrating arbitrary action does not condemn the scheme in question, let alone a wholly unrelated one.

That's a fine article you linked to, by the way; unfortunately, it doesn't quite meet that audi alteram partem test. I have no idea what the real facts of the case were, from reading that. I guess I'm supposed to believe that outfits like the FAA just go around interfering with people's licences on a whim ... Oh, wait, there's a second link. To a college term paper ...

"...a fair and rights-respecting licensing scheme..." does not even exist on paper, much less in practice.

Well, I guess that's what Ronnie Reagan thought when he set about deregulating your entire economy, hm? Or maybe there's some other motivation for rejecting regulation ... because by your logic, there can be no regulation of any activity in society that involves licensing the people who practise it. No qualifications will be required to practise law, to practise medicine, to drive a car, to fly a plane, to operate a television station, to own a dog ... Where's Ron Paul when you need him??

In the meantime, people need licenses to do all those things and a whole hell of a lot more. But to acquire firearms? Heaven forefend.


edited to add omitted link

[one-eyed fat man]

101. That's got to hurt!

Cannot believe you don't think it happens. Can't believe you think that is the only case. But here is the latest twist on government burueacrats misusing their authority and decades long struggles to fight them.

http://www.wlf.org/Upload/litigation/litigationupdate/100311RSVidrine.pdf?tr=y&auid=9620149

Judge finds EPA guilty of malicious prosecution, awards $1.6 million judgment against it. The judge found that the bureaucrat in charge of the prosecution was acting out a personal grudge, and dragged out the case so that he could keep having an extramarital affair with the FBI agent assigned.

The EPA person was charged with perjury and just plead out. The judge found that he acted "with intent and reckless and callous disregard for anyone’s rights other than his own, and reckless disregard for the processes and power which had been bestowed on him, to effectively destroy another man’s life.”

The judge stated that she also would have awarded punitive damages except for the fact that under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is immune from punitive damages awards, regardless of how deliberate the evil intent the government, or its agents might display.

Thousands of victims are bled dry and destroyed for every one who manages to have a legal foundation spend great fortunes in their defense.

[iverglas]

72. no, I'm not necessarily saying that

he unstated assumption you're making is that the standards for revoking a license would (should?) be less strict than the current process.

In this particular case it seems fairly obvious that the woman would meet the criteria for being found incompetent, at least. So all I said in this case was what I said in this case: what earthly point would there be in putting a 96-yr-old woman through a competency hearing solely in order to have her disqualified from firearms possession?

The obvious point here is that the standards applied in the US are largely irrelevant and do little to accomplish what their apparent purpose is.

How is the fact that someone is incompetent to handle their financial affairs relevant to firearms possession? How is the fact that someone was hospitalized for, say, post-partum depression relevant to firearms posession?

There are factors that are actually relevant to whether someone is an appropriate candidate for firearms possession. Why not have a process that considers those factors, rather than using some vague proxy for them like "adjudged incompetent" or "committed to a mental hospital"?

You all object so strenuously to the (misrepresentation) that age should be used as a proxy for appropriateness. Why don't you object as strenuously to those factors being used? Surely there are people who have been committed for psychiatric treatment at some point in their life -- keeping in mind that the reasons and motives for such an action can vary hugely -- who should not be disqualified from firearms possession, just as may be 96-year-olds who should not be disqualified. The same for some people convicted of some criminal offences.

I am not the one proposing arbitrary denial of the exercise of a right here. Never have been. I've always been the one arguing for case-by-case consideration, i.e. a licensing scheme. Not blanket exclusions like your present system.

The story in the OP isn't an argument for requiring a universal licensing system, because nothing in the story would have been avoided or minimized under a fair and rights-respecting licensing scheme...

Really? You're saying that if the individual had had a licence, and a family member and/or a social worker reported to the licensing authority that the individual had threatened to shoot them, this would not be grounds for revocation? I suppose robbing a bank at gunpoint might not be either?

A fair and rights-respecting licensing scheme allows for at least an administrative and if necessary a judicial review of a denial or revocation. That's why that's what is provided in Canada's licensing scheme (which is because Canadians demand fairness and reject any kind of arbitrary government action, and litigate the hell out of any government that tries to step out of line in that regard, as apparently nobody in the US really does). As, of course, I have said over and over and over for years.

At the same time, a licensing system would require bureaucratic overhead and expense, so 'all that effort' would need to be made at one end of the process or the other (or actually, both).

A licensing scheme as it exists in Canada and comparable places will of course not screen out all inappropriate candidates; they don't involve administering personality tests or diagnosing delusional or other mental illnesses. Driver licensing schemes don't screen out alcoholics. But driver licensing schemes don't require references and answers to questions about family status and mental health, which the Canadian firearms licensing scheme does, for example.

If the individual in question here had had a licence, the "effort" would have been made by her submitting an application and it being considered and the licence granted. There would then have been a manageable mechanism for having her licence at least suspended and her firearms removed pending clarification of the situation.

This is out of date but gives an idea of how things work.

http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/fr_010813_03_e.cfm
(long government publication, no copyright infringement issue; I am reproducing only the items relating to licensing, not registration)

Keeping guns out of the wrong hands

The success of the registration and licensing system is not just about numbers. There are good examples of the difference the Firearms Act is making by enhancing public safety and combating crime. For example:

... In February 2000, in Alberta, a hearing was held for an individual who had been refused a possession and acquisition licence. The licence was refused due to a psychiatrist's opinion that the applicant should not have firearms. In addition, there were a number of discrepancies in the individual's application form and a history of criminal convictions. The Area Firearms Officer's decision to refuse the licence was upheld by the judge.

... In early 2000, an individual in B.C. had his licence revoked because of a history of sexual assault offences. The individual decided to appeal the decision in court, but the judge confirmed the decision of the firearms officer to revoke the licence.

Again early in 2000, an individual in B.C. had his licence revoked for repetitive drinking and driving offences. Again, the revocation was appealed and the judge upheld the decision that the individual should no longer hold a licence because of irresponsible behaviour.

In August 1999, an Alberta judge upheld the decision of a firearms officer to refuse a licence to an applicant awaiting trial on drug charges on the basis of public safety concerns.

In August 1999, in Nova Scotia, a woman called the spousal line with a concern that her estranged husband was applying for a licence and was going to indicate that he did not have a spouse because she had refused to sign his application. She was quite concerned for her safety and the safety of their children. She later filed a complaint with her local police agency in order to generate a reference on the new Firearms Interest to Police (FIP) database (a reference log which indicates that an individual has recently been involved in a violent incident, has a history of mental illness or other information relevant to a firearms licence application). This means that if he tries to obtain a licence in the future, it will automatically trigger an investigation.

In April, 1999, in Quebec, the FIP database matched several cases of domestic abuse to "valid licence holders". Their licences were revoked.

In February 1999, in Nelson, BC, an individual with a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC--precursor to the new licence) attempted to purchase several firearms over a two-week period. The background check indicated numerous prior convictions and several recent incidents involving criminal and violent activities. His licence was suspended pending further investigation. The sales were refused. The individual later attempted two more times to purchase firearms until his licence was revoked and his firearms seized.

In January 1999, in Red Deer, Alta., an armoured car company employee had been falsifying his gun licence and permit to carry a handgun for the past three years and had gone undetected until the new registry caught this anomaly. Officials reported the incident and an investigation was launched.

Compare this:

"In April, 1999, in Quebec, the FIP database matched several cases of domestic abuse to 'valid licence holders'. Their licences were revoked."

to the situation in the US. Someone who has a spousal violence conviction becomes ineligible to acquire firearms, and presumably is required to turn any firearms owned in, I don't know. What enforcement/monitoring mechanism is there? Pretty much none, at least as long as there is no background check requirement for private sales (and no registration requirement to give it teeth).

In Canada, without a licence, an individual's only access to firearms would be through an illegal transfer, and it really, really just is not that easy for your average person on the street to access that route.

If the individual in this incident had been required to have a firearms licence, she may well not have had access to a firearm (no one seems to know how or when she acquired it). And an entirely non-thug person would still be alive.

[gejohnston]

93. in domestic abuse cases

you should sell, give away or get rid of them in some manner. Either way, it is a federal felony to posses them just like it would be for someone convicted of a felony. That includes members of the military. An infantryman or military police officer would be transferred to a none armed job until the administrative discharge paperwork is done.

[iverglas]

97. "you should"??

in domestic abuse cases you should sell, give away or get rid of them in some manner.

Well hey, that's effective.

Either way, it is a federal felony to posses them just like it would be for someone convicted of a felony.

Hey, that too.

[ileus]

48. Is this the time to apply the MikeB is King rule?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marengo]

99. Only men abuse their spouses and children?

"2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it."

I would suggest rephrasing this.