Interesting addition in Iowas law!

[Heffay]

Aaah, but you don't get to pick and choose what part of my hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question applies. I also stated that, hypothetically, sentences would be appropriate and long enough that the felon paid his due when he got out.......IF he got out.

Playing "what if" only works if you go whole hog.

Then again, I still don't think there should be a training requirement, regardless of how much better it makes some of you feel. You see, restricting me because it makes you FEEL better is a mamby-pamby whiny bitch thing to do, and it really isn't something I care to buy in to. YMMV

So, what you are saying is that if sentencing guidelines were much more strict, you'd be ok with letting felons, Naval officers and wifebeaters carry?

[goalie]

Aaah, but you don't get to pick and choose what part of my hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question applies. I also stated that, hypothetically, sentences would be appropriate and long enough that the felon paid his due when he got out.......IF he got out.

Playing "what if" only works if you go whole hog.

Then again, I still don't think there should be a training requirement, regardless of how much better it makes some of you feel. You see, restricting me because it makes you FEEL better is a mamby-pamby whiny bitch thing to do, and it really isn't something I care to buy in to. YMMV

So, what you are saying is that if sentencing guidelines were much more strict, you'd be ok with letting felons, Naval officers and wifebeaters carry?

To be safe, let's just say that if I got to write the sentences. Not guidelines.

And let's not get too carried away. I didn't say anything about naval officers. Gunny did.

[Heffay]

And let's not get too carried away. I didn't say anything about naval officers. Gunny did.

All you people look the same to me.

To be safe, let's just say that if I got to write the sentences. Not guidelines.

The problem is that the judicial system makes mistakes, and convicts innocent people. Heck, Texas has killed two of them. Once you start losing Rights permanently either through no fault of your own or making a mistake 50 years in the past, well... on the good/bad scale, that's bad.

[xd ED]

Damn straight, it is a Right and I should not have to ask permission, and as such I should not be licensed or taxed by any governmental body to exercise my Right!

I agree with Heffray to a point.
I like a system for licensing carry. It makes a lot of things simpler. One example is that it eliminates the (ridiculous) cop question "How do I know you're not a felon" altogether. Easy, you're required to present your permit upon request, and they know that felons don't get permits. BS avoided. My complaint is that it should be available at 18. If you can sign up to bleed for country, you're an adult. Also service members who had handgun shouldn't have to prove that they know what they're doing, it's an insult; I like Iowa's lead in this regard. Furthermore, I'd like to see MN lower the ceiling for application fees. Maybe 10 dollars. 100 dollars for a permit, that's unreasonable. That's an imposition against our right.

One thing we could reasonably expect of this legislature, if anyone submitted a bill, is to wave the application fee entirely for vets. That ancient Marine in my last class was moaning about the money. This was Hennepin so that means 100 bucks on top of the class fees. He brought a 1911 that he'd purchased for less than $40 dollars from a hardware store (how's that for the time value of money, and laws?). He's obviously retired. Shouldn't we cut him a break?

Also.

When they get out, should they be allowed to carry?

No crap. Once someone has served a sentence they've served they're sentence. Parole is part of that. Whenever that's done they've paid their debt. We could see this in MN, a rebuttal a federal BS, if only principled. Of course it shouldn't be presented as having to do with firearms. It could be presented as "restoring reformed citizens' rights act", under the auspices of voting rights, exempting certain convicted persons from federal restriction of rights in MN specifically. Guns would fall under that blanket. I know at least one long-ago DUI who's not a dangerous criminal and just wants to hunt ducks again. It sucks.

EDIT: fixed for language filter. I hate this thing.

I agree with your veterans' exceptions.

As to restoring the rights of felons, might there be some consideration/ concern regarding reduced sentences?
For restoration of rights to reasonable, it would seem that punishment should have fit the crime. The reputation of the state's legal system suggests that doesn't regularly occur.

And a bit off-topic: Could a 'full sentence with full rights restored' vs 'lighter sentence without/ delay in restored rights' be a negotiated issue?

As to: "...I know at least one long-ago DUI who's not a dangerous criminal and just wants to hunt ducks again...." Isn't there something going on there besides a DUI, or 2?

[John S.]

Haha, Naval Officers. That brings up a good story.........................

At a division party there were a bunch of Radiomen and our Division officer, a LTJG. They were all drinkin pitchers of beer and eating pizza. Well, one of the radiomen got sick and puked in a pitcher on beer and our division officer, not seein this poured himself a beer and drank it, then noticed something in the pitcher, he put his hand in it and fished out a pepperonni slice, then proceeded to barf all over the place. I **** you not, funny story.................

[hammAR]

And let's not get too carried away. I didn't say anything about naval officers. Gunny did.

Damn straight, I would ban them for life from owning weapons, voting, procreating......
and maybe owning a computer, at least one with a keyboard..........

[Heffay]

and maybe owning a computer, at least one with a keyboard..........

I see you haven't heard about the iPad yet.

[goalie]

The problem is that the judicial system makes mistakes, and convicts innocent people. Heck, Texas has killed two of them. Once you start losing Rights permanently either through no fault of your own or making a mistake 50 years in the past, well... on the good/bad scale, that's bad.

Besides that being a completely different issue, you know my thoughts on the death penalty.

Perfect is the enemy of good. And very good. And very, VERY good. You can always point to little problems in a peripherally related topic and use that as an excuse to not do what's right in the topic at hand. While I admire your attempt to troll, neither gunny or myself were talking about losing rights permanently, so the red herring doesn't swim far enough upstream to spawn.

So, to sum it up from my perspective

1. Permit training requirement bad
2. High fees bad

Number one is the same way I feel about voting. Even though sometimes I think you should have to prove that you can find your ass with two hands if given a one-hand head-start and a map, tests would essentially negate voting from being a right. (Oh, and before you get on the ID thing, keep in mind that voting is only a right in the US for citizens, so it is not negating a right to require someone to prove they are eligible, and willfully allowing non-eligible people to vote essentially negates MY right).

Number two = poll tax if you want an analogy.

[1911fan]

I will agree that we should have permits for carry, when the Press agrees that they should have permits from the Federal Gov't for being journalists. Its exactly the same thing. The law of the Land say "shall not be infringed" Thats pretty darn easy to understand for most people.

[Heffay]

So, to sum it up from my perspective

1. Permit training requirement bad
2. High fees bad

Number one is the same way I feel about voting. Even though sometimes I think you should have to prove that you can find your ass with two hands if given a one-hand head-start and a map, tests would essentially negate voting from being a right. (Oh, and before you get on the ID thing, keep in mind that voting is only a right in the US for citizens, so it is not negating a right to require someone to prove they are eligible, and willfully allowing non-eligible people to vote essentially negates MY right).

Number two = poll tax if you want an analogy.

I agree with #2 100%. Wait... make that 99%, because perfect is the enemy of good enough!

Your opposition to #1 seems based around the training being able to fail people. There are several solutions to this: The easiest is to make the training have no test. You go there, you learn, you get a certificate saying you attended the training. At least you were given the opportunity to learn something, get updated on the latest rules, etc.

An ID is not proof that you are who you say you are. Allowing people to vouch is a form of proving who you are; it is not willfully allowing non-eligible people to vote. The voucher is also committing a felony if he does it fraudulently. It's interesting that you think criminals will be willing to commit a felony by falsely vouching for someone, but woah, no way in HELL would they get a fake ID! That's like...illegal, man!