Gun Control

[AR Husker Fan]

U.S. Supreme Court rules that a domestic-violence conviction is a misdemeanor crime of violence for purposes of limiting access to firearms.

From the Syllabus:

Petitioner Stephen Voisine pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend in violation of §207 of the Maine Criminal Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause[ ] bodily injury” to another. When law enforcement officials later investigated Voisine for killing a bald eagle, they learned that he owned a rifle. After a background check turned up Voisine’s prior conviction under §207, the Government charged him with violating §922(g)(9). Petitioner William Armstrong pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife in violation of a Maine domestic violence law making it a misdemeanor to commit an assault prohibited by §207 against a family or household member. While searching Armstrong’s home as part of a narcotics investigation a few years later, law enforcement officers discovered six guns and a large quantity of ammunition. Armstrong was also charged under §922(g)(9). Both men argued that they were not subject to §922(g)(9)’s prohibition because their prior convictions could have been based on reckless, rather than knowing or intentional, conduct and thus did not quality as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. The District Court rejected those claims, and each petitioner pleaded guilty. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that “an offense with a mens rea of recklessness may qualify as a ‘misdemeanor crime of violence’ under §922(g)(9).” Voisine and Armstrong filed a joint petition for certiorari, and their case was remanded for further consideration in light of Castleman. The First Circuit again upheld the convictions on the same ground.

Held: A reckless domestic assault qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under §922(g)(9).

[NM11046]

 

 

 

 

 

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

 

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere.

 

I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well).

 

 

I never suggested Hawaii was devoid of poverty, violence, crime, etc.

 

How popular are guns in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures?

 

I can't speak to popularity in those countries.

 

 

How popular/prevalent are guns and gun ownership rights in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures compared to mainland USA? More or less? Take a guess.

Those cultures have had a greater influence on Hawaii for a much longer period of time than USA's influence has had.

 

I think that's a broad assumption - what I can point to as fact is:

 

• There were a total of 420,409 firearms were registered in Hawaii from 2000 to 2014.
• This is on top of the 1 million firearms that were already in the state

(data is from the Hawaii Attorney General’s office and the Honolulu Police Department)

 

That means there could be more guns in Hawaii than residents, according to data from the Attorney General’s office., or at least approx 1 firearm per state resident.

What they do different is regulate them:

• Before purchase one must obtain a permit from county chief of police.
• You must be 21 years old and a U.S. citizen.
• You must be fingerprinted and photographed for a criminal background check and affirm by affidavit your mental health and lack of drug or alcohol addiction or criminal background.
• You authorize release of your medical history and give the name and address of your doctor (if any).
• Your doctor is required to release any mental health information pertinent to your acquiring firearms.
• A drunk driving record, history of serious psychiatric diagnosis, or any treatment for alcohol or drug abuse will result in denial of your permit. A letter from a physician will be required to establish that you are “no longer adversely affected”.
• You will wait 14 days to get your permit.
• The new law requires an investigation anytime a registered owner is arrested for any cause. (there is a database up to date showing all current owners)
• There are tight restrictions on what kind of weapons are legal (i.e. Full auto (machine gun) firearms are not permitted in Hawaii (since statehood) except for military and law enforcement. Assault pistols (essentially large semi auto pistols of cosmetic paramilitary appearance, usually accepting detachable magazines of over 10 rounds capacity), are banned. Hawaii state law prohibits greater than 10 round detachable pistol magazines (including rifle magazines capable of use in any pistol, such as the AR-15/M16, AK, M1 carbine, H&K carbine, Thompson, and aftermarket Ruger .22 magazines) Sawed off shotguns/rifles, stun guns, silencers, etc are all illegal.

​For sure, gun ownership is less prevalent in Hawaii 6.7% vs. Illinois 20.2%. Murders by gun are also less in HI (.5% vs 2.8% in IL). Is this because of their "cultural heritage" or the laws?

 

If you think longevity of stateship or cultural background from hundreds of years ago is a factor, then one would think that Massachusetts, NY, RI would all be high, because they've been states the longest and were created by folks who were gun toting advocates during the Revolution right? Respective ownership numbers are: 12.6%, 18%, 12.8% and murders per 100,000 are low, 1.8% (MA), 2.7% (NY), 1.5% (RI).

 

Instead your leaders in gun deaths are the the states (ironically) with the high gun ownership: LA-44% MO-41%, MD-21% with death by gun at LA - 7.7% MO-5.4% MD-5.1%.

 

Numbers don't lie. More guns = more gun deaths. And I don't think you can point toward founding father culture as much as you can point to local laws that impact the figures. I'd have to do a little more research, but I'm predicting that states with tougher laws for guns include MA, NY and RI and that more lax laws exist in LA, MO and MD.

[Red Dead Redemption]

​For sure, gun ownership is less prevalent in Hawaii 6.7% vs. Illinois 20.2%. Murders by gun are also less in HI (.5% vs 2.8% in IL). Is this because of their "cultural heritage" or the laws?

If you think longevity of stateship or cultural background from hundreds of years ago is a factor, then one would think that Massachusetts, NY, RI would all be high, because they've been states the longest and were created by folks who were gun toting advocates during the Revolution right? Respective ownership numbers are: 12.6%, 18%, 12.8% and murders per 100,000 are low, 1.8% (MA), 2.7% (NY), 1.5% (RI).

Instead your leaders in gun deaths are the the states (ironically) with the high gun ownership: LA-44% MO-41%, MD-21% with death by gun at LA - 7.7% MO-5.4% MD-5.1%.

Numbers don't lie. More guns = more gun deaths. And I don't think you can point toward founding father culture as much as you can point to local laws that impact the figures. I'd have to do a little more research, but I'm predicting that states with tougher laws for guns include MA, NY and RI and that more lax laws exist in LA, MO and MD.

That's not the sole intent of what I said or suggested, but thanks for the red herring, fallacious reasoning and mischaracterization anyway.

 

But you still proved my point; there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly.

[cm husker]

Interesting that there's are as many guns as residents in Hawaii. That's surprising.

 

To me, that reads as an argument that reducing the number of guns available to people may not be the key variable in reducing gun crimes.

 

It also indicates that unless a lot of people own 3+ guns, for all the regulatory costs, there doesn't seem to be that much actual restriction on obtaining a firearm. How much money are they spending? It would be interesting to see the % of people denied a purchase due to the laws and an estimate of the # of people who don't try obtain a gun because of their feeling that they couldn't qualify for ownership.

 

As I've said before, the medical disclosure rules concern me from a privacy perspective and the implications around people avoiding tReatment in order to avoid private information disclosure.

 

This is a complex debate. Seems like all of the data could break

[cm husker]

Has anyone else lived in Hawaii? There's no reason to kill anyone there.

 

Now, steal a bike? That's a different story.

[Landlord]

there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly.

 

 

So you're saying that less guns and changing the culture would be successful deterrents towards the rates of gun violence?

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly.

 

So you're saying that less guns and changing the culture would be successful deterrents towards the rates of gun violence?

Only if everyone gets a pony too, because that would be ideal and perfect. Why can't we make ponies for everyone? Just shut down the gun factories and turn them into breeding farms. Easy peasy. Even if it only saves one life that will eat rainbows and poop butterflies, then it is worth it.

[NM11046]

 

​For sure, gun ownership is less prevalent in Hawaii 6.7% vs. Illinois 20.2%. Murders by gun are also less in HI (.5% vs 2.8% in IL). Is this because of their "cultural heritage" or the laws?

If you think longevity of stateship or cultural background from hundreds of years ago is a factor, then one would think that Massachusetts, NY, RI would all be high, because they've been states the longest and were created by folks who were gun toting advocates during the Revolution right? Respective ownership numbers are: 12.6%, 18%, 12.8% and murders per 100,000 are low, 1.8% (MA), 2.7% (NY), 1.5% (RI).

Instead your leaders in gun deaths are the the states (ironically) with the high gun ownership: LA-44% MO-41%, MD-21% with death by gun at LA - 7.7% MO-5.4% MD-5.1%.

Numbers don't lie. More guns = more gun deaths. And I don't think you can point toward founding father culture as much as you can point to local laws that impact the figures. I'd have to do a little more research, but I'm predicting that states with tougher laws for guns include MA, NY and RI and that more lax laws exist in LA, MO and MD.

That's not the sole intent of what I said or suggested, but thanks for the red herring, fallacious reasoning and mischaracterization anyway.

 

But you still proved my point; there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly.

 

Hard for me to understand your intent when you make such broad statements and back it up with nothing but unsubstantiated information. If what it is is your opinion or your gut instinct then it's fine to say that. You'd get more respect.

 

Forgive me if it was said many pages back, but what are your suggestions? All you've done the last page or so is pick apart others thoughts.

[HuskerShark]

 

there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly.

 

 

So you're saying that less guns and changing the culture would be successful deterrents towards the rates of gun violence?

 

 

I think he's saying that lots of nice beaches and palm trees are useful deterrents to committing crimes (I would think).

[TAKODA]

If you (any of us) pass the requirements set before you by law enforcement, legal systems and government, and the manufacturer's of any type of guns/magazine/ammo, are allowed to create any type of gun, magazine or ammo for the purpose of resale, then said items should be open to legal purchase by those who qualify.

 

Don't tell me what I can or can not own! If the items in question are open to others, don't tell me that you do not feel I have sufficient reasoning to own said gun or you can stick it up your wazzu!

 

Again, I am all for some sort of measures (additional measures) to help reduce gun violence, but the gun is not the problem, Period!!! Its the individual who wields it, so enforce certain qualification criteria, background checks or mental health checks, and recognize the gun being the culprit is a false statement.

[Landlord]

Don't tell me what I can or can not own!

 

Do you feel that you should be allowed to own a nuclear warhead? What about napalm? An RPG?

 

 

 

but the gun is not the problem, Period!!!

 

The gun is part of the problem.

[HuskerShark]

After thinking about things and collecting a lot of different viewpoints, I've established a firm viewpoint on the issue.

 

I am not in favor of infringing the rights of citizens without due process. Doing so would be a violation of the 5th amendment. No citizen should be deprived of the right to own firearms unless they have been convicted of a violent crime such as murder, assault, rape, etc. Perhaps if they've been diagnosed with mental illness as well.

 

Otherwise, it is not ok to restrict anyone's access to owning guns.

[knapplc]

My conviction is that owning guns is not a "right" along the same lines as freedom of speech or due process.

[HuskerShark]

My conviction is that owning guns is not a "right" along the same lines as freedom of speech or due process.

According to the 2nd and 5th amendments to the constitution, your conviction misguided.

[zoogs]

My conviction is that owning guns is not a "right" along the same lines as freedom of speech or due process.

 

Strongly agree. Rights should not be freely or cheaply infringed; the fact that owning dangerous murder weapons is one of those rights is what's crazy about this post-2008 reality in which we live.