178
179

Philly Mom Who Carried Licensed Gun into NJ Faces 11 Years in Prison (theroot.com)

janetnotjackson が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Fenrir_Rendar 12 ポイント13 ポイント

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/062408_title13ch54.pdf

Jersey resident here. Gun laws are obscenely strict.

Wait times are MONTHS to even get the card.

N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.3 Criteria for the issuance of a permit to carry a handgun (a) No application for a permit to carry a handgun shall be approved by a chief police officer of a municipality, the Superintendent or the Superior Court, unless the applicant:

  1. Is a person of good character who is not subject to any of the disabilities which would prevent him or her from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card as provided in this chapter;

  2. Has demonstrated that at the time of the application for the permit he or she is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns; and

    3. Has demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun

That last part basically means you're a cop, or a Money trucker. Those are the only folks i've seen with legal handguns. Mind you this is just for a permit, not a CCW

[–]starlinguk -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Doesn't sound obscenely strict, it sounds every sensible.

[–]boazdm 6 ポイント7 ポイント

You can't have a gun unless you're a cop?

Sensible?

Do you understand the reason for the existence of the 2nd amendment?

[–]StrukkStar 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Do tell!

[–]boazdm [非表示スコア]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Basically the right to bear arms is meant to protect the people from the government.

The idea is that it's much harder to establish a totalitarian regime (such as the one in North Korea) when the people have a well armed militia.

[–]StrukkStar [非表示スコア]

And you believe this is a reasonable fear and a reasonable reason to own guns in 2014 USA?

[–]boazdm [非表示スコア]

Do I believe that I, personally, need a gun to establish my own militia? No. I've never owned a gun in my life. I'm not a gun person.

Do I believe that militia needs to exist? Abso-fucking-lutely.

If the latest round of NSA scandals hasn't convinced you of that, I don't know what will.

[–]StrukkStar [非表示スコア]

And you believe, that in this scenario where there's a super secret plot of creating a totalitarian regime in USA, that people owning guns will put a stop to it or even slow it down?

[–]CrystalElyse [非表示スコア]

Have you seen Red Dawn?

[–]zamuy12479 [非表示スコア]

Listen, I won't pretend I expect the government to come knocking down my door to quarter troops or establish my fealty to a dictator.

But, let's not pretend this kind of stuff is morally beyond them.

To be fair though, I feel like most gun regulations need to be somewhat stricter, and these ones only need relaxed a small amount.

[–]themeatbridge [非表示スコア]

It actually doesn't say that. It just says you have to demonstrate a need. A single mother who had been robbed twice would likely have qualified.

[–]DeviousMachin3 [非表示スコア]

Demonstrate a need to whom? Who gets to decide wether my need or your need is good enough? Seems like a law written to disbar people from gun ownership on any whim they can think of.

[–]viking_ [非表示スコア]

Seems like a law written to disbar people from gun ownership on any whim they can think of.

Essentially.

[–]themeatbridge [非表示スコア]

Demonstrate a need to the local police and a state supreme court judge. "Need" refers to "specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means."

And it isn't prohibiting gun ownership, it is prohibiting carrying a firearm in public.

[–]mumbles9 [非表示スコア]

not normally. In areas where carry permits are highly regulated the threat has to be constant as opposed to a few random occurrences.

[–]themeatbridge [非表示スコア]

Well, considering she's not a Jersey resident, and the robberies didn't happen in Jersey, I wouldn't expect this particular woman to qualify. But someone who was robbed twice in a year seems to be under constant threat to me. I certainly wouldn't call it a few random occurrences. I lived in Philadelphia for 11 years, and getting robbed twice in a year is a lot.

Although, in reading the article again, the circumstances of the robberies aren't described. I assumed it was two muggings, but that's just an assumption on my part.

[–]boazdm [非表示スコア]

The second amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If I have to "demonstrate a need" and you get to decide if that "need" is sufficient, you are infringing on my 2nd amendment rights

[–]themeatbridge [非表示スコア]

I'm familiar with the second amendment, and I understand your argument, though, respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation. We could debate it, but this law has been upheld as constitutional by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, and in May this year, the SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal, allowing the ruling to stand.

[–]boazdm [非表示スコア]

this law has been upheld as constitutional by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals

This doesn't mean much to me.

The same court can rule that black people can't vote, and it will still be in violation of the constitution.

At the end of the day, the constitution trumps all other laws.

If you want to change the constitution, there's a process for it - it's called adding an amendment.

[–]themeatbridge [非表示スコア]

Fair enough, and I'll be the first to say that appeals courts often get it wrong. I put more stock in the fact that the SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It's their job to determine if laws are unconstitutional, and they didn't see enough here to bother with the case. While even the Supreme Court gets it wrong sometimes (IMHO), at least they publish their arguments and reasoning, which makes it easier to identify the points of differentiation on specific cases.

There are plenty of amendments I would like to see, but none of them involve gun ownership. I think the current system is working fairly well, and state governments are taking the steps their constituents feel are necessary to control firearms.

[–]Gary_Burke [非表示スコア]

This doesn't mean much to me.

So, you respect the part of the constitution that you can own a gun, but not the part that allows for the courts to interpret how gun ownership can be regulated?

[–]MikeHolmesIV [非表示スコア]

A single mother who had been robbed twice would likely have qualified.

Oh, honey...

[–]themeatbridge [非表示スコア]

The language I've seen used at the standard is "specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means." So, yeah, likely.

[–]Woody_Haze [非表示スコア]

What about the fact that, in this case, it seems like the prosecution and judge are going for the absolute maximum sentence. That is 10 years for the firearm plus 1 and a half for the bullets. Keep in mind this woman is a single mother with 2 kids and more than one job.

That doesn't sound sensible to me, regardless of her breaking the state law.