Is a misdemeanor sufficient reason to deny second amendment rights?

[Clockwork]

Is a Misdemeanor Sufficient Reason to Deny Second Amendment Rights? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Is a Misdemeanor Sufficient Reason to Deny Second Amendment Rights? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

It is not enought to deny a CHL.......

 

[jdh]

Yes it is. A misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence is a bar to CHL ( or gun ownership in general thaks to the lautenberg amendment).

 

[mtaylor]

Yes it is. A misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence is a bar to CHL ( or gun ownership in general thaks to the lautenberg amendment).

I don't see this as 'domestic violence.' In most states laws 'Domestic' is defined as pertaining to the family. Don't know what it is in that state. But reading the article is appeared as though the altercation was between a serviceman and a gang member over the gang's territorial rights. I don't think I would call that domestic violence by any stretch of the definitions.

Is it enough to deny a CHL? I suppose that is up to the state laws. As far as I am concerned any violent crime is enough to delay your right to obtain a CHL, but NOT enough to prevent you from owning or possessing a gun in your own home, or while hunting.

 

[txinvestigator]

Yes it is. A misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence is a bar to CHL ( or gun ownership in general thaks to the lautenberg amendment).

Actually, and Class A or B conviction in the last 5 years, or a conviction for a class C Disorderly Conduct is enough to deny a CHL.

 

[txinvestigator]

I don't see this as 'somestic violence.' In most states laws 'Domestic' is defined as pertaining to the family. Don't know what it is in that state. But reading the article is appeared as though the altercation was between a serviceman and a gang member over the gang's territorial rights. I don't think I would call that domestic violence by any stretch of the definitions.

.

It is not. However, He was referring to the post that said a misdemeanor was not enough to deny a CHL. I don't think he was responding to the article.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Actually, and Class A or B conviction in the last 5 years, or a conviction for a class C Disorderly Conduct is enough to deny a CHL.

I did not realize a time frame was involved, my mistake.

 

[MR Redneck]

Actually, and Class A or B conviction in the last 5 years, or a conviction for a class C Disorderly Conduct is enough to deny a CHL.

There you go. Same thing goes for a person with a CHL. Disorderly conduct can lead to a revoked CHL.

 

[txinvestigator]

I did not realize a time frame was involved, my mistake.

The domestic violence conviction is a permanent disqualification, as it makes one ineligible under federal law to posses a handgun.

 

[txinvestigator]

There you go. Same thing goes for a person with a CHL. Disorderly conduct can lead to a revoked CHL.

Yep, a conviction will result in a revocation for 5 years, then there is a 2 year revocation "penalty".

 

[ZX9RCAM]

The domestic violence conviction is a permanent disqualification, as it makes one ineligible under federal law to posses a handgun.

My mistake again, I was unaware that one could get a "misdemeanor" domestic violence.....I am wrong again....nobody ever listen to anything I say, lol...

 

[jdh]

It is not. However, He was referring to the post that said a misdemeanor was not enough to deny a CHL. I don't think he was responding to the article.

Correct.

 

[Texasjack]

Actually, and Class A or B conviction in the last 5 years, or a conviction for a class C Disorderly Conduct is enough to deny a CHL.

As I read the regs for disorderly conduct, that would include 'mooning' someone or yelling in a provocative way? That could disqualify whole generations!

 

[Wolfwood]

heheh only if you get CAUGHT!!!

 

[kyletxria1911a1]

As I read the regs for disorderly conduct, that would include 'mooning' someone or yelling in a provocative way? That could disqualify whole generations!

he gets crazy on a full moon

 

[txinvestigator]

As I read the regs for disorderly conduct, that would include 'mooning' someone or yelling in a provocative way? That could disqualify whole generations!

Mooning someone coule get you a DO. Yelling at someone would not get there. You have to use certain language that, by its very utterence, tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Case law has held that means a preson of reasonable temperment would want to fight.

 

[[BoT] Jack]

Yes, there are a crap load of misdemeanors that could bar you from owning a gun. But losing your rights over a DV misdemeanor conviction is not permanent. There's a host of ways to regain your rights if you were convicted on those grounds.

However, I think it's ridiculous that it is such. I can't stand the DV laws. Some of them may be good, but others are complete crap. I also don't like the whole restricting the rights of a freeman for any reason. As I have said many times, if the man/woman is safe enough to be free, then they are safe enough to have all of their rights intact. As for my argument to support this stance, see any argument against GFZs. It's the same argument.

 

[Bithabus]

Yes, there are a crap load of misdemeanors that could bar you from owning a gun. But losing your rights over a DV misdemeanor conviction is not permanent. There's a host of ways to regain your rights if you were convicted on those grounds.

However, I think it's ridiculous that it is such. I can't stand the DV laws. Some of them may be good, but others are complete crap. I also don't like the whole restricting the rights of a freeman for any reason. As I have said many times, if the man/woman is safe enough to be free, then they are safe enough to have all of their rights intact. As for my argument to support this stance, see any argument against GFZs. It's the same argument.

I agree. Punishment should fit the crime, but once the punishment is over all rights should be intact. Our system of light or no punishment and a huge population of half-citizens just leads to more crime.