Episode 43 - An interview with Frank Fiomingo with NJ2AS

[PoliticsAndGuns]

News from California and Louisiana, some national news, and an interview with Frank Fiomingo with the New Jersey Second Amendment Society.

[Devereaux]

Interesting that NJ is pretty much the same as IL in so far as CCW. We have the rap here in IL as the last state that doesn't allow CCW, but in fact we do allow it for a VERY proscribed class of people - like Chicago Aldermen. For the rank and file citizen, no permit exists.

Let me bring up a point that is often held widely as correct - that felons shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. ?Why, exactly. ?Didn't they do the punishment for their crime. ?Why are they now denied rights for the rest of their lives.

I am sure there will be a slew of those who will claim that by committing a felony they have forfeited their rights. ?Really. ?Does that mean we can now charge them and toss them in jail without a trial. ?That we don't have to bring any evidence other than the cops said so. ?How about Habeas Corpus. They're known felons - ?why shouldn't we have the right to keep them in jail longer than 48 hours without charging them. ?Why don't we say that they must spend the rest of their lives on parole.

There is a point to going to trial and being found guilty. You have a sentencing which is supposedly your price to society for doing that crime. So you embezzled a mil from a bank, or something. ?Why does this mean you should lose your right to keep and bear arms. ?Or any other right. WHILE you are IN jail, you lose your rights - to things like keeping arms, voting, etc. ?But why afterward.

Let me approach this from yet another angle. MOST felons that are intent on staying with that "career field" will promptly acquire a weapon on exiting jail. If we no longer had this restriction, they would be able to buy weapons from a legitimate dealer, allowing a legitimate citizen to make some money on the transaction. It's going to happen - ?why facilitate the criminal monetary system. ?Wouldn't it be better to have laws that added  penalties for committing a crime with a firearm. Or simply have that a class onto itself. Or change the sentencing rules for things like Armed Robbery, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, etc. We would have the same "discouraging" effects, perhaps even stronger ones (note the changes in criminal behavior with the passage of CCW laws about the nation), and lessen the overall bureaucracy loads, while keeping RIGHTS as rights.

I am sure there are arguments against this. I am kind of looking for a good discussion on this kind of issue.

[PoliticsAndGuns]

Dev, you bring up a point that I have discussed in the past and you and I are in 100% agreement on. In almost every other place in life a convicted felon has their rights restored except the rights guaranteed them by the second amendment. Most states even allow voting to continue after a served sentence.

What about those that are not violent felons? Bounce a check for $250 and you are a felon. I don't know of a single area where you can rent any place to live for $250 and so screw up your checkbook and bounce a rent check and you too could loose your constitutional rights!

Newt Gingrich hit it on the head when at the NRA convention he said that gun rights are HUMAN rights.

[Devereaux]

From a strictly economic point of view, allowing regular availability of firearms would put a significant dent into the illegal arms business, as most felons who continue to "do business" would probably prefer to not have the added charge of possessing a stolen weapon. They are mostly interested in the result of their "collection" efforts. There would probably still be SOME market for "untraceable" weapons, but it would be small, and not nearly as pervasive. And in the process, the legitimate gun store owners would have the opportunity to earn a profit - the way the market works.

From a moral standpoint, any non-violent felon has as much need for self defense as a regular citizen. Denying such people the right to defend themselves seems to place such requirements upon society. ?So then do we have to assign a bodyguard to all such people. We already know that the police don't have any legal obligation to defend us, protect us from crime, or rescue us from such an act. Yet we supposedly have the right to arm ourselves and defend ourselves. ?What do felons do when attacked.

From a practical point of view, ?what the heck difference does it make that a felon isn't legally allowed to own a weapon. If he commits another crime, then he is guilty of THAT crime, and piling on with illegal weapon possession is just that - piling on. We ought to be dealing with crimes via sentencing, not with loading on a cartload of charges. Today one sees that the DA's office is often spending lots of time just trying to think of all the things they can charge someone with. That is simply unacceptable. Government shouldn't be in the business of thinking up just how many ways I can write up an offense. (ONE of the things currently wrong with our present legal system - too many laws.)

[Kimerazor]

Devereaux..."(ONE of the things currently wrong with our present legal system - too many laws.)"  You are absolutely correct. 

There are too many laws.  I asked my delegate how many laws were rescinded during their last session.  He said "not one."  Also, they never rescind laws, they just add to the books.  He told me that they have a constant stream of citizens in their office arguing for more laws.  Fortunately, my delegate is a 2A guy and has a lot of common sense as he is not the typical politicians.

[Kimerazor]

In Maryland, there is also a law limiting a citizen to one handgun per month.  Additionally, you can only carry firearms from your home to a gun range or gun shop and back to your home without stopping for gas or food or anything.

Furthermore, Maryland (Maryland State Fire Marshall) restricts reloaders to possess no more than 5 LB of powder.  This restriction of rights is exactly that.  The lawmakers blame the MSFM and state that they are not the ones restricting rights, but I'm sure that they are happy with the result.

This restriction is ridiculous because if you are a criminal you can drive across any state line and buy all the powder they want for their nefarious use.  If you want to buy 5.001 LB up 20 LB, you can purchase a two year license for $150.  Wonderful Maryland-stan!

Maryland is nearly as bad as NJ. 

[Devereaux]

Yes, just more ways to make you toe the line.

The lawmakers have no shelter from the MSFM, as HE is a governmental person, and they are charged with protecting the freedom of the citizens That may or may not mean from specific governmental workers or departments. It really doesn't matter that it's in the executive branch - the legislature has the ability to correct the issue. Indeed, the legislature has the ability to simply do away with the MSFM - a position of seemingly no consequence.

Bet they don't though! Imagine! CUTTING bureaucracy!