Taxation is a government infringement on a freedom. Just think if they taxed free speech.

I wouldn't equate any and all taxation or regulation to be an infringement. It really comes down to a case by case basis, but that really is a separate issue in and of itself, worthy of discussion but I don't want to sidetrack the issue too much.

When you adopt the attitude that "not all rights are sacred," you are saying it's okay with you if freedoms are deteriorated as long as the ones you care about aren't eroded (case by case).

How will you feel when a right that does matter to you is suddenly reclassified under the "can be infringed" case?

I don't claim to be able to draw the line perfectly on exactly where and when a right can be regulated. I do however recognize that no right is absolute. If no right is absolute then there is inherently a grey area where a line is drawn and since that grey area exists you will have differing positions on the matter. It is not an attitutde but a fact of the matter. Because of this I look at each attempt to restrict or regulate a right on a case by case basis rather than a blanket position on the matter. Because of this we have to be open to recognizing that a line can be drawn somewhere and just try to make sure the line is drawn with as minimal inconvenience as reasonable.

The fact that we cannot yell fire in a crowded building is probably the most illustrative example of how even our most important right can be regulated.

Even though the second ammendment says it shall not be infringed I am sure that there is some situation where even the more ardent gun rights supporters would say, Ok, this person should not be having a firearm.

I don't claim to be able to draw the line perfectly on exactly where and when a right can be regulated. I do however recognize that no right is absolute. If no right is absolute then there is inherently a grey area where a line is drawn and since that grey area exists you will have differing positions on the matter. It is not an attitutde but a fact of the matter. Because of this I look at each attempt to restrict or regulate a right on a case by case basis rather than a blanket position on the matter. Because of this we have to be open to recognizing that a line can be drawn somewhere and just try to make sure the line is drawn with as minimal inconvenience as reasonable.

The fact that we cannot yell fire in a crowded building is probably the most illustrative example of how even our most important right can be regulated.

Even though the second ammendment says it shall not be infringed I am sure that there is some situation where even the more ardent gun rights supporters would say, Ok, this person should not be having a firearm.

While no right is absolute, most of those now currently trying to find that line you speak of are inherently disingenuous with their methodology. Core, fundamental rights should always be interpreted using strict scrutiny. Period. That isn't the case and courts are batting around interpretations of allowable restrictions/infringements based on intermediate or lesser standards. And, those restrictions are being allowed are prior restraint, which is almost unheard of in restricting fundamental rights. Contrary to popular belief, you can indeed yell fire in a crowded theater. If you do so and there is no fire and you cause a panic, you are then held responsible. But what doesn't happen is that you have to get a permit prior to going into the theater.

We need a bright line. Allowing "the government" to evaluate or restrict on a "case by case" basis without clear and unequivocal guidance is asking for the same situation we have now here in Hawaii with concealed carry. All it takes in one individual in a position of power to negate all the rights and protections of those rights the Constitution affords.

While no right is absolute, most of those now currently trying to find that line you speak of are inherently disingenuous with their methodology. Core, fundamental rights should always be interpreted using strict scrutiny. Period.

We need a bright line. Allowing "the government" to evaluate or restrict on a "case by case" basis without clear and unequivocal guidance is asking for the same situation we have now here in Hawaii with concealed carry. All it takes in one individual in a position of power to negate all the rights and protections of those rights the Constitution affords.

Please define a "situation where ... this person should be having a firearm."

Then, explain the rationale for not allowing a convicted felon to have a firearm.

How about someone on a terrorist watch list for being suspected of planning to blow up a public target?

This is being debated today.  We have Gitmo for a reason.  To incarcerate a terrorist (enemy combatant) who is not part of any formally declared hostility by any sovereign nation makes holding and charging them very difficult.  Were they on US soil, they would be afforded the same rights we give citizens.  If these were Russian spies and terrorists, we would have avenues of punishment for both the combatant and the country he is part of. HOWEVER, you are telling me that without anything more concrete than suspicion, you believe his rights should be stripped away?  No proof, no day in court, just an accusation unfounded or not?  As I said earlier, you can't punish someone for what you think they might do.  If you have proof (not just suspicion) he was actually conspiring, planning, and assisting in the act, then that's different.  We actually have laws against conspiracy as they relate to certain crimes.  Suspicion?  How about, I saw eyeeatingfish downtown taking pictures of large buildings, making notes about the schedules of government workers, and complaining online about the overthrow of the Hawaii monarchy.  I suspect he might be planning some sort of attack in retaliation.  Is that enough to have you arrested and shipped off to Cuba?

How about someone who has severe hallucinations and repeatedly talks about assassinating a president but has never actually showed intent to follow through so the charge of threatening wouldn't stick.

This is different.  We have a case of someone with a HISTORY of having not just hallucinations, but fantasies of killing the prez.  Based on that , he is clearly in need of psychiatric care, and should not be trusted with firearms.  If he is later deemed to not be a threat, he will then have his rights intact.  This doesn't have to be a lifetime rights-ectomy.  this is a DEMONSTRATION of an actual threat, not a perceived problem based on no history or observable evidence.  To reduce the apples-to-oranges equivalence here, the guy in the first example would need to state his intentions to blow something up, not just be suspected.  Evidence!  Sometimes it's required! 

Or how about an individual convicted of molesting a child and then murdering the child. The individual has served there time in prison and is now out.

What if that same guy is living alone and is being threatened with violence by neighbors for his crime?  Does he have the same right to self-defense as you or I?  Will keeping a gun from him make the next kid he kills any safer (chances are the first victim wasn't shot -- that's not common for child molesters)?  The gun is not the problem.  The problem is a sexual predator who probably should NOT be released into society, because the chances he will do it again are greater than many other crimes due to the obsessive nature that drives these people to act.  Turning a criminal into a victim after they serve their time is not the way to make him a productive member of society.  But, neither is releasing someone with a real mental illness like pedophilia into open society without a short leash and supervision.

In a personal example, I had an adopted brother who was the product of a mom on drugs. He had emotional problems and anger problems. My dad ended up having to give him back to the state because he was getting increasingly violent and dangerous around my younger adopted brother.

Again, history of violence and mental issues.  Actual evidence of being a safety problem trumps his rights.

Or how about any of the most recent individuals who went on mass killings and later it was revealed to the public that they had mental problems.

Many of those were the product of psychotropic drugs used to treat a HISTORY of mental illness.  Again, evidence over suspicion or labeling.

Do any of the above scenarios warrant the restriction of the right to own a firearm in your opinion?

You are making a case that you should assign the same level of punishment (stripping people of rights) to an entire group because SOME in their group kill.  NOT ALL PEOPLE WITH A GIVEN ILLNESS KILL.  In fact, very few will.  Is it a common factor in some cases?  Probably, but it is not an indicator of future bad acts.  Rights are not supposed to be afforded only to people we feel safe around.  With freedom comes risks.  You're taking the stance that all people like X are dangerous, and they need to be disarmed; but not people like Y are dangerous (e.g. people with autism but no history of psychotropic drug use, for example)?  These people you disarm will still be dangerous without a gun.  They just won't make the news. 

So punishing 100% of these people by your accounting is okay since maybe less than 1% will kill.  I think you could make the same case for people with NO diagnosed mental illnesses (the "normal" among us).  If we go by your logic, disarming us all is justified on the exact same grounds since I bet the percentages are every close.


As for not allowing a felon to own a firearm I would say it serves a number of purposes. One it serves as a deterrent to commit felonies, another is that felonies are generally serious crimes and if an individual is willing to commit serious crimes then it might stand to reason that they would be more willing to commit serious crimes of violence or with a gun. I don't necessarily believe in a blanket ban on felons owning firearms though. Certain types of non violent felons I think should be allowed to regain said right after perhaps a certain amount of years.

According to the CEPR study, nonviolent offenders make up more than 60 percent of the prison and jail population.
Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all inmates, up from less than 10 percent in 1980. Much of
this increase can be traced back to the “three strikes” bills adopted by many states in the 1990s. The laws require state
courts to hand down mandatory and extended periods of incarceration to people who have been convicted of felonies on
three or more separate occasions. The felonies can include relatively minor crimes such as shoplifting.

What have longer prison sentences accomplished? Research by the Pew Center on the States suggests that
expanded incarceration accounts for about 25 percent of the drop in violent crime that began in the mid-1990s—
leaving the other 75 percent to be explained by things that have nothing to do with keeping people locked up.

I would tend to agree. I don't know if I would say most but certainly a lot.

When I said case by case basis I meant as to my personal position on a proposed law. I look at each one and try to evaluate it based on the method, the merits, whether it is supported by facts etc. I was not referring to a government official just having free reign.

How about someone on a terrorist watch list for being suspected of planning to blow up a public target?

How about someone who has severe hallucinations and repeatedly talks about assassinating a president but has never actually showed intent to follow through so the charge of threatening wouldn't stick.

Or how about an individual convicted of molesting a child and then murdering the child. The individual has served there time in prison and is now out.

In a personal example, I had an adopted brother who was the product of a mom on drugs. He had emotional problems and anger problems. My dad ended up having to give him back to the state because he was getting increasingly violent and dangerous around my younger adopted brother.

Or how about any of the most recent individuals who went on mass killings and later it was revealed to the public that they had mental problems.

Do any of the above scenarios warrant the restriction of the right to own a firearm in your opinion?

As for not allowing a felon to own a firearm I would say it serves a number of purposes. One it serves as a deterrent to commit felonies, another is that felonies are generally serious crimes and if an individual is willing to commit serious crimes then it might stand to reason that they would be more willing to commit serious crimes of violence or with a gun. I don't necessarily believe in a blanket ban on felons owning firearms though. Certain types of non violent felons I think should be allowed to regain said right after perhaps a certain amount of years.

I think Mauidog did a great job of responding to your responses, but let me add a few things.

You know that the terror watch list, as Mauidog said, is based on suspicion and that many of those on it (like the "no fly" list) are erroneous and include good, law-abiding citizens who happen to have similar names, right? You also know that there is no way to appeal your placement on the list should you be one of the many thousands that are allegedly on the list because of similar names, right? You cannot petition the government to remove your name, you cannot produce evidence to refute your placement there, you're just stuck. Guilty without proof and with no means to clear your good name. How would you feel and what would you do if you were placed on that list without merit and the law to restrict firearms ownership from those on the list? Still sound good to you?

As for your naive thoughts on felons and the crimes that will make you one: Imagine you are walking through a National Forest in the Pacific Northwest. You see a feather and bend down to pick it up. Admiring it you slip it in your pocket so you can show your fellow campers when you get back to camp. Once you get there you whip out the feather to show your friends and a warden sees you. He walks up to you, slaps cuffs on you because the feather is from a Bald Eagle and possession is, you guessed it, a felony.

California passed 900 laws last legislative session. We have so many laws it is impossible for any one person to know, and therefore abide by them all. Stories abound about otherwise law-abiding citizens running afoul of arcane or little known laws. It's easy to be a non-violent felon, just ask Martha Stewart. What benefit is it to society to bar these non-violent felons from owning a firearm for the rest of their lives? How many gun crimes do you think such a ban has prevented?

And therein lies the problem. ALL RIGHTS are EQUAL in terms of how they should be applied and how possible infringements to accomplish governmental goals should measured. The right to be free from warrantless searches is every bit as important as your freedom of religion, which is every bit as important as your right to free speech, which is every bit as important as your right to keep and bear arms.

Thinking such as yours has lead us to the position we are in now insofar as others (judges) somehow think one right (Freedom of Speech) should somehow be applied differently and infringements measured differently because "they" don't happen to think another right (keep and bear arms) is as important as the other.

Laws are not a deterrent for any crime if you are already a criminal.  The law will not stop you from acting.  The laws might deter SOME law abiding people, but we know it doesn't if they are really bent on doing something wrong.  The deterrent argument is always weak in that regard.

Oh, believe me, the point of obscure and overbearing felonies is not lost on me. Like I said though I do not believe in a blanket ban on firearms being owned by a person convicted of any and every type of felony.

And yes I do realize that a terror watch list could be abused or catch up innocent people but all the monday morning quarter backs in the world would ask why the guy on a terror watch list was legally allowed to buy a firearm the day after he killed multiple people. I do believe the courts ruled that people are allowed to petition the government to remove their name from the no fly list now though.

I think all rights are equally important however each right touches a different area and any proposed infringement needs to be taken on a case by case basis with regards to the right being infringed.

Some analysts claim the Tsarnaev brothers' mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, is a radical extremist and supporter of jihad, who influenced her sons' behavior.[199][200][201] This prompted the Russian government to warn the U.S. government about the family's behavior, on two occasions. Both Tamerlan and his mother were placed on a terrorism watch list about 18 months before the bombing took place.[202]

According to a Wall Street Journal report citing statements by anonymous US officials, Russia withheld information from U.S. intelligence after its initial warning, after which it denied U.S. requests for more information.

Oh, believe me, the point of obscure and overbearing felonies is not lost on me. Like I said though I do not believe in a blanket ban on firearms being owned by a person convicted of any and every type of felony.

And yes I do realize that a terror watch list could be abused or catch up innocent people but all the monday morning quarter backs in the world would ask why the guy on a terror watch list was legally allowed to buy a firearm the day after he killed multiple people. I do believe the courts ruled that people are allowed to petition the government to remove their name from the no fly list now though.

I think all rights are equally important however each right touches a different area and any proposed infringement needs to be taken on a case by case basis with regards to the right being infringed.

So what felonies and which felons should be exempted? Be specific.

The fact that you are OK with innocent people being caught up and denied the exercise of their fundamental rights is frightening. The fact that you seem to condone the use of a list to identify people who's rights will be restricted without the benefit of due process is a clue to your misunderstanding of what living in a free society means. The fact that you seem OK with innocent people having to spend lots of their money to try and get their names removed from a secret list so that they can prove their innocence in order to exercise their fundamental rights shows a complete misunderstanding of how our legal system should work. As Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." 

You never answered the question about what you would do if it were you on the list.

Maui, I am particularly interested in your answer to this section of my reply to you previously:

"For the individual hallucinating and fantasizing about killing the president, I would agree that this person should not be allowed to have a gun. This is an example of my point that no right is absolute and individual exceptions can be made in certain circumstances. Now my follow up question is, how are we to restrict this individual from buying a firearm if we are unable to perform any type of background check? How are we to take away a firearm already owned by this individual unless we know he has a gun (gun registration)? I am not trying to make the case that we need more background checks in Hawaii but I feel that these are strong arguments being made by those who do want to maintain or add more regulation and I don't have a good answer. How can we stop a person or people who should not be allowed to own a firearm from owning a firearm if any system that regulates firearm ownership is deemed unconstitutional?"