It's nice to feel welcome.Bill I was waiting for you to show up
Don't officers make that decision on a regular basis? "Should this person (still) have a handgun?" vs "Should I allow this person to have a handgun while I'm around?" (reference disarming a driver, emptying his magazine, field-stripping his handgun, and giving him back a bag of parts with the instruction, "Don't reload this until I'm gone." There are many reports of this happening. I'm sure a couple of folks can relate similar stories. I personally cannot.)Thanks for the good dialogue and question. I guess in my mind the officer has no reason or incentive to keep Bruiser from carrying a firearm. I think the distinction I have been trying to make is that it is not up to the individual officer on a contact to decide if the person should or should not have a handgun. I don't believe personally that should ever be the officer's job, absent the gun being actually used in the commission of a crime. The decision of whether they should be in possession of a handgun has already made for them based on the actions and conduct of the person (IE qualifying convictions causing their LTCH to be revoked).
Surely you are aware of officers asking regularly, "Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?" at traffic stops or for that matter a person walking on the sidewalk being stopped a la Terry. If there really is RAS or even PC to believe a crime was (and this baffles me)or was about to be committed, investigate that. The gun makes no difference, does it?Now, on a normal traffic stop as you have said the officer, absent any other reasonable suspicion, would have no reason to even ask the person if they had any firearms in the vehicle. However, if there were other factors involved and further investigation revealed criminal activity in which a handgun was found, I personally then find it completely reasonable for the officer, through the normal inquiries, to validate that individual is a proper person to be carrying a handgun.
It's not just the "bad element", all of our society will feel a newfound sense of freedom... Based in reality, for once.As for the other states argument, you are right in that I have no data to back up my prediction yet. I am just trying to look at it from the criminal's viewpoint. Let's toss the LTCH and background check system out the window. Now I can carry a gun without the officer (without jumping through a bunch of hoops) knowing whether I should have it or not, even if I'm stopped for a legitimate reason. I cannot imagine this not emboldening some bad element of our society to feel a newfound sense of freedom from the restrictions which were put in place to protect us. That is my only point. I'm all about 2A but I do believe there are some people that we absolutely do not want carrying guns around because of their past history.
It's easy to quote Franklin, a la "freedom vs. liberty", but I see your point. I don't completely agree nor disagree with it, in that yes, there are people we don't want carrying guns: Those people need to not be free to carry knives, rocks, lead pipes, or any other weapon as well.
I've said similar to that myself. You're also slightly misquoting him. It's close, but there's a significant difference: He said "maybe after a cooling off period". Now, to me, that sounds like a "waiting period" for purchasing, and I don't agree with it in that context. What would be similar, and have not only the same effect but also be respectful of liberty would be to say that once a person has satisfied all legal obligations, he should be made whole. In practice, this could refer to a stay in a "halfway house" after prison. The purpose of those places, as I understand it, is to reintegrate the person back into free society, where they can open their own door and not have to put their hands through a slot to be cuffed for someone else to open it for them. One aspect of a free society is that a free man may possess arms. This would be a good place to slowly re-acclimate the former prisoner to that right among others. Once free from that, why would you stop the former felon who just wants protection from his former associates from having that protection? (and if he uses the handgun offensively, it's a sentence enhancement, just as it is for anyone else)CBHAUSEN just stated he thinks when someone is released from prison they have paid their debt and should be given a completely clean slate regardless of the significance or nature of the crimes. I respectfully disagree.
Let me say this again, I have absolutely no resistance to ditching the card system.. I paid for the 4 year licenses for years and then the lifetime when it became available and i hate it. But understand that part of the money for that card is going to making sure we at least make a good faith attempt at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
If we can do both (get rid of the card and not hamper law enforcement), I'm all for it.
Props to you for attempting to satisfy both. I'm not sure it's possible, and thus, we may have to choose which we support: Greater LEO power/authority at the loss of liberty vs. greater liberty for good, honest people to exercise their rights at the expense of police having to work harder to find things people have actually done wrong. The story goes that a man was on trial and the prosecutor challenged, "Mr. Jones, at the time of your arrest, you had all the tools on you to commit burglary!" and Mr. Jones replied, "Madame, at this moment in this courtroom, you have on you all the tools needed to be a prostitute."
Tools mean nothing. Intent is everything.
Blessings,
Bill