• ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Ah, I see. To me that isn’t necessarily a bad thing though, to require some proof before removal of one’s rights. If anyone can just say “my ex said X” then what is stopping people from abusing that? Right wingers calling it in on trans people who are trying to protect themselves from right wing violence for instance, or an abusive ex having his ex-wife’s guns taken so he can go hurt her, something like that. I personally believe it should require at least some proof that would hold up in court. I’m also not a huge fan of the whole “Take the guns first, due process second” approach that Trump supported with the red flag law secret hearings business, I think that if someone is making verifiable threats, you should be able to charge them with that in a normal, non-secret hearing, leading to the adjucated IVC, removal of rights, flagged in NICs, etc.

    I think there is a way that we could all agree on, gun rights supporters and realistic gun control supporters alike (the no-guns crowd aside). Something like actually sending these people through a judge in a timely manner oughta at least be a step in the right direction.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah, it’s not that rights should be taken away without going through a judge, it’s that more things NEED to go through judges to create the appropriate disqualifying paper trail.

      I’d argue too that we need to expand what is a disqualifying event. If you look at the Michigan State shooter, he had been arrested on a felony gun charge, allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor, did his time, then when his background check was clear, he bought another gun, and here we are.

      Should we allow people to plead down from felony to misdemeanor when the charge involves guns? A felony charge would have blocked him from buying a gun.

      Maybe, when it comes to gun charges, a misdemeanor should also be a disqualifier? Right now it’s only felony charges, but if someone has already proven they can’t be trusted around a gun…

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        My only concern there comes from another opinion I have “A lot of shit that is a felony should be a misdemeanor, and a lot of shit that is a misdemeanor shouldn’t even be a crime.”

        I’ll need to look to see his specific charge, but off the top of my head I can think of two “gun charges” that should at least be misdemeanors if crimes at all.

        1. CCW without a permit. IMO this should be a misdemeanor at best. Hell, about half of the states no longer require one, they certianly aren’t necessary even if they’re a good idea. I also posit that if voter ID laws are racist because black people can’t get state IDs easily, CCW permits are the same (and also sometimes subject to sherriff approval and can be abused outright by a racist sherriff easily if you’re in a shit county.) These laws typically do impact marginalized neighborhoods rather than gated communities, as the poor are more likely to work saturdays (when they have the classes), not be able to afford the 100+ dollar fee, etc.

        2. Having guns and illegal drugs. Frankly, I don’t think this should be a crime at all. “I believe gay married couples should be free to defend their marijuana farms with AR15s.” Now, if they’re using the guns to steal for drugs, well now they’re committing real crimes (robbery) and we absolutely lock them up, but simply “yes I smoke weed and yes I will protect myself shall you try to kill me” should not even be a crime.

        Brandishing or something with an actual victim I 100% agree though. Like I said idk what his specific gun crime was I have to look it up when I get a sec.