DRUG AND ALCOHOL CHARGES AND YOUR LTCH. UPDATE>

[wally05]

If we kept them in longer, because we don't trust them, why would you think they were ok when they did get out? They get out, they get weapons regardless whether they are legal or not. We lose again.

True, but what is our main argument against gun control? Criminals will get guns no matter what, right? So, why restrict the reformed people from getting firearms to protect their family.

 

[in_betts]

I return to the fundamental issue here: If the ex-con is unable to be a full citizen, then neither can I. If restrictions can be placed on them to keep them from being full citizens, the same can be done to me.

Furthermore, the entire concept of the citizen as the center of our government is lost. Now we have gradations of citizens all defined by their level of rights given up to the government. When that is the case, why are any of us surprised the default question is, "Am I allowed to do XYZ?" instead of, "Is the State allowed to impede me in XYZ?" Even better is the question, "Does the law say I can XYZ?" vs. "Does the law say I cannot do XYZ?"

We all want the greater good, but inherently we want our rights while expecting others to permanently lose theirs. Those rights that are given by the Creator cannot be taken by man, the State, or the law, period. When we act otherwise, we simply reinforce the same systems and mindframe that we rail against all day long.

Don't trust them? Then punish them longer. Use the grey area of parole perhaps. But any state that can make a citizen into a subject (quasi-citizen) is one that concerns me greatly. Even if it is a DUI person, even, even, even...

Dam techres, you keep making perfect sense like that and somebody's gonna put your name on a ballot!

 

[theweakerbrother]

If self defense is a human right, does that human right no longer apply to felons or one-time non-violent offenders?

 

[Griffeycom]

I agree with you here.

You have guys that had sex with their 17 yo gfs (when the guy was 18) that have a sex offender label on them for the rest of their life...

The punishment part of the system does need an overhaul.

Not true, age of consent is 16 in Indiana. So if he/she was 18+ and the other is less than 16, then they'd be in trouble.

 

[LPMan59]

but other states are different. remember the kid in georgia who was 17 and received consensual oral sex from a 15 yo girl and under the law earned himself a felony with a mandatory multiple year sentence? ridiculous.....

edit: and speaking of ridiculous, 16 yo for the age of consent..... i dont care what a politician says, the fact that it is legal for a guy my age (27) to be sleeping with a 16 yo is messed up.

 

[ATF Consumer]

lmfao

you really should do some research on alcoholism. if youre lazy like me, just watch intervention on a&e. do you want those people carrying guns?

unfortunately there is no cure, but there is sobriety. find a higher power and stay clean for a determined amount of time, then you should be able to get your LTCH back. mess up again, see ya later.

It doesn't matter if I want them to or not...it is what is their legal right?
My ultimate answer is YES, I would want those people to carry guns. They should have just as much right to protect themselves as you or I.

 

[LPMan59]

i certainly see the point your driving at, but i will respectfully disagree. no right is absolute, at least under the law. i cant provoke and yell obscenities at someone and then sue them on a 1st amendment basis if they beat me up if what i was saying would cause a reasonable man to fight.

i guess i view alcohol/drug addicts the same way. there are limits to the right to bear arms. chemical dependence is a very complex disease with both pathophysiological and psychosocial components. at its core though, an addict simply refuses to accept for reality for what it is and will go to any length to maintain their fantasy. i think any recovering alcoholic will tell you there is/was a deep immaturity present. and that IMHO disqualifies you from carrying/owning a firearm.

i do believe in second chances however. whether you were the kid getting caught with a bag of weed in college, or the lifelong crackhead who sorts his life out, you should be able regain your 2A rights. i am not qualified to decide (who is really?) the criteria for getting said rights back, but a not impossibly hard course of action should be available for those who straighten up and (re)join society.

 

[aclark]

i certainly see the point your driving at, but i will respectfully disagree. no right is absolute, at least under the law. i cant provoke and yell obscenities at someone and then sue them on a 1st amendment basis if they beat me up if what i was saying would cause a reasonable man to fight.

i guess i view alcohol/drug addicts the same way. there are limits to the right to bear arms. chemical dependence is a very complex disease with both pathophysiological and psychosocial components. at its core though, an addict simply refuses to accept for reality for what it is and will go to any length to maintain their fantasy. i think any recovering alcoholic will tell you there is/was a deep immaturity present. and that IMHO disqualifies you from carrying/owning a firearm.

i do believe in second chances however. whether you were the kid getting caught with a bag of weed in college, or the lifelong crackhead who sorts his life out, you should be able regain your 2A rights. i am not qualified to decide (who is really?) the criteria for getting said rights back, but a not impossibly hard course of action should be available for those who straighten up and (re)join society.

You just totally contradicted yourself there. You disagreed with him, then you said that anyone with a drug or alcohol problem shouldn't be in possession of a gun, then you come back and say everyone should have a second chance, even the drug and alcohol abusers. So which is it, should or shouldn't someone that have paid their debt to society be able to carry?

Also, you went straight to the extreme. Its not always about the abusers and addicts. Sometimes its that college kid smoking weed, or that businessman out for drinks with his wife, and has 2 glasses of wine. Granted its hard to say if those people should be treated differently (the way the current laws are), but that's why I said earlier that it should be a case by case system. Unfortunately we don't have the means or resources to do that, so for now, we have to deal with what we have.

 

[chubbs]

Personally I'd prefer ZERO tolerance on the drug charges. While I oppose alcohol abuse, I'd concede that 1 charge of something like a DUI might be acceptable.

My opinion is that people with a LTCH should be squeaky clean. Getting a LTCH should be akin to getting a "good honest upstanding citizen award" from our state. Having that little pink card should be a symbol to others that you are a good guy.

+1
The last thing we need is guys making a bad name for the rest of us, while endangering everyones life.

 

[wally05]

Not true, age of consent is 16 in Indiana. So if he/she was 18+ and the other is less than 16, then they'd be in trouble.

Haha, I know. I was using it as an example. Not all states are like that.

 

[wally05]

but other states are different. remember the kid in georgia who was 17 and received consensual oral sex from a 15 yo girl and under the law earned himself a felony with a mandatory multiple year sentence? ridiculous.....

edit: and speaking of ridiculous, 16 yo for the age of consent..... i dont care what a politician says, the fact that it is legal for a guy my age (27) to be sleeping with a 16 yo is messed up.

Yep, and now that kid is considered a sex offender. I guess that's all a different subject, but it goes to show you that our system is screwed up and doesn't really let people leave what they did behind. Which means their 2A right is gone also.

 

[zlittell]

id rather be high than drunk and shoot a gun... at least i could hit what i was aiming for and not be unsure of what im shooting at. there are a lot of stupid cliches about marijuana but its definently much less stupid than alcohol. just from an ex smokers point of view

and i carry and handle firearms better than many adults who are gun nuts.

-zack-

 

[LPMan59]

You just totally contradicted yourself there. You disagreed with him, then you said that anyone with a drug or alcohol problem shouldn't be in possession of a gun, then you come back and say everyone should have a second chance, even the drug and alcohol abusers. So which is it, should or shouldn't someone that have paid their debt to society be able to carry?

Also, you went straight to the extreme. Its not always about the abusers and addicts. Sometimes its that college kid smoking weed, or that businessman out for drinks with his wife, and has 2 glasses of wine. Granted its hard to say if those people should be treated differently (the way the current laws are), but that's why I said earlier that it should be a case by case system. Unfortunately we don't have the means or resources to do that, so for now, we have to deal with what we have.

what i was disagreeing with was the original statement that someone who has (present tense) an alcohol problem doesnt necessarily have a problem with guns. i disagree 100% with that. a person who is in active addiction is not responsible enough to carry or own firearms. if you get a DUI or busted with a bag of weed or a bag of rock, goodbye LTCH. I do believe however that those people who get clean and stay clean with 12 step programs deserve a second chance after a predetermined amount of time, rehab, probation, etc. that is what i am saying.

 

[ATF Consumer]

what i was disagreeing with was the original statement that someone who has (present tense) an alcohol problem doesnt necessarily have a problem with guns. i disagree 100% with that. a person who is in active addiction is not responsible enough to carry or own firearms. if you get a DUI or busted with a bag of weed or a bag of rock, goodbye LTCH. I do believe however that those people who get clean and stay clean with 12 step programs deserve a second chance after a predetermined amount of time, rehab, probation, etc. that is what i am saying.

What facts do you have to back this up with?
If that was true...there would be a few less LEO on the streets

Why would someone have to deserve their rights?
So you think it is OK for the government to take away your rights?
If it is a right, how can it be taken away?

Next thing ya know they will be selling licenses to speech, so if you say something "Hateful" or anything else deemed inappropriate, you could lose your right to free speech. But if you are good for a set period of time, and after weeks of counseling, they might let you speak again.

 

[LPMan59]

are you implying that a fair % of LEOs are drug addicts?

but hey man, if you think someone who goes to work drunk everyday with a gun on his hip is fit to carry that firearm, so be it. but i disagree. just like i dont think someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic should have guns, as the voices ALWAYS are negative that Beautiful Mind stuff isnt true.

your rights are not absolute, for better or worse.

here's an interesting question for you guys. if the American Jihadists were to be released from prison, do you believe they should have unlimited access to firearms? just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[wally05]

are you implying that a fair % of LEOs are drug addicts?

but hey man, if you think someone who goes to work drunk everyday with a gun on his hip is fit to carry that firearm, so be it. but i disagree. just like i dont think someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic should have guns, as the voices ALWAYS are negative that Beautiful Mind stuff isnt true.

your rights are not absolute, for better or worse.

here's an interesting question for you guys. if the American Jihadists were to be released from prison, do you believe they should have unlimited access to firearms? just playing devil's advocate here.

Why not? They are Americans and served their time. I'll just stock up on more ammo and practice my aim just in case they choose to go back on their ways.

 

[ATF Consumer]

are you implying that a fair % of LEOs are drug addicts? No, I said a few.

but hey man, if you think someone who goes to work drunk everyday with a gun on his hip is fit to carry that firearm, so be it.
I didn't say anything about them being drunk at work. I am simply defending against your comment about an active addition person is not responsible enough to carry or own firearms.
but i disagree. just like i dont think someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic should have guns, as the voices ALWAYS are negative that Beautiful Mind stuff isnt true.
Are you paranoid?

your rights are not absolute, for better or worse.

here's an interesting question for you guys. if the American Jihadists were to be released from prison, do you believe they should have unlimited access to firearms? just playing devil's advocate here.

If you are a free citizen, you should not have any rights infringed.

 

[kyle1058]

If self defense is a human right, does that human right no longer apply to felons or one-time non-violent offenders?

A human right is not an American citizens right. We are way more restricted than most of the sheeple realize. It has taken a couple hundred years but the government is slowly turning into a dictatorship. A piece of paper dictates our lives (money), and we live by so many rules its rediculous. Free country my arse.

Felons lose their rights for life as humans and as americans and lose their amendment* rights, and as one-time non-violent offenders they lose some rights and sometimes are penalized harshly for the crime they committed and are not given the chance to say their side of the story and are punished at the "minimum mandatory" extent of indiana law. Complete crap. Whether someone is caught or whether they arent caught, they may be committing a crime, but having an eye opening experience like getting arrested is enough for most people to realize they need a severe change in life style and CAN do it without suffering a year or more of penalties for a decision that took less than 30 seconds and injured no one, god forbid someone got injured from their actions.