Aurora, IL (not CO) shooter broke the law!

[eye95]

Yep. It was illegal under IL law for him to possess the firearm.

Yet IL’s oppressive gun laws did not stop him. The purchase of the firearm just sailed right through.

Once again we see that someone willing to break laws against murder are willing to break silly anti-gun laws too. Secondary laws don’t prevent crime. They just define offenses that also catch up the law-abiding in the broad net. Just make murder illegal.

Oh...wait...it already is.

Aurora attacker took gun to work he shouldn't have owned

The man who opened fire and killed five co-workers including the plant manager, human resources mana

www.whio.com

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

People who are willing to commit murder normally do not care about lesser laws..

Gun control is not about crime control it is about people control.

 

[solus]

Back in context...
Individual’s 1995 transgression was in Mississippi ~ that state failed to pass it on to NICS [couldn’t possibly be because the poorest state in the union didn't have the manpower or $$ resources to fulfill this tasking]

2014, IL SP followed their policies, didn’t find anything in IL or NICS, so issued the individual their privileged FOID, which he used to purchase a handgun!

Further, this individual has been arrested seven times, according to Aurora police. Those arrests include charges of domestic violence and violating an order of protection [hummm really sounds reminiscent of Boward County Fl LE agencies failure to act with Cruz!]

Let’s put this into perspective...The Windy City has had year to date 32 male citizens shot and killed. I am sure all those firearms were ‘legally purchased’ through the infamous IL FOID system! [ sarcasm off]

 

[FreedomVA]

Everytime there is a shooting happened because some individual can't control their emotions, (LE are not doing their job), so the 2A communities become the escape goat. Why?

I think the only solution to these issues are to elimiate human LE and placed AI in place to enforced our Constitutional Rights and the law of the land. With AI, it will eliminate any human flaws, Bias feelings, Stressed from LE, ect............But this will never happen because there are too many leeches in our systems that are preventing their POWERS being stripped. Look at what happened when the GOVT shutdown for 35 days. All i heard was a bunch of entitled GOVT employees b*tching and cry, really????Is that what our GOVT is all about? A place for degenerates to be positioned in a job and can't really get fired just like us ordinary citizens?

It is now a Mountain caused from mole hill...and it's a becoming a mockery to our Constitutions

 

[Ghost1958]

Everytime there is a shooting happened because some individual can't control their emotions, (LE are not doing their job), so the 2A communities become the escape goat. Why?

I think the only solution to these issues are to elimiate human LE and placed AI in place to enforced our Constitutional Rights and the law of the land. With AI, it will eliminate any human flaws, Bias feelings, Stressed from LE, ect............But this will never happen because there are too many leeches in our systems that are preventing their POWERS being stripped. Look at what happened when the GOVT shutdown for 35 days. All i heard was a bunch of entitled GOVT employees b*tching and cry, really????Is that what our GOVT is all about? A place for degenerates to be positioned in a job and can't really get fired just like us ordinary citizens?

It is now a Mountain caused from mole hill...and it's a becoming a mockery to our Constitutions

The Constitution never authorized gov to limit the ability to acquire a fire arm, felon or not.

To dangerous to have a gun, too dangerous to not be locked up.

 

[eye95]

Actually, the Constitution does recognize the government’s authority ability to deprive Rights, including Life, Liberty, and property following due process of law. It is absolutely appropriate for the government to restrict the Right of violent felons to own and carry guns.

Where the mistake is being made is casting a broad net on all felons and always making the restrictions permanent, regardless of actual or potential changes in circumstance.

Any restrictions on Liberty as a result of a conviction should be a part of sentencing, be for a specified period of time, and be based upon the offense committed.

 

[FreedomVA]

Why do you think Lady Justice is blind folded?

 

[JTHunter2]

It was the initial background check for the FOID that failed to find any problems. It was a few months later when he tried to get a CCW and they did a "deeper" check and found those other problems. His FOID was revoked but he hadn't turned the card or the guns in yet, as he was required to do.
Did the system fail? Yes. Should he have even gotten a FOID? NO. Ain't hindsight wonderful??

 

[Ghost1958]

Actually, the Constitution does recognize the government’s authority ability to deprive Rights, including Life, Liberty, and property following due process of law. It is absolutely appropriate for the government to restrict the Right of violent felons to own and carry guns.

Where the mistake is being made is casting a broad net on all felons and always making the restrictions permanent, regardless of actual or potential changes in circumstance.

Any restrictions on Liberty as a result of a conviction should be a part of sentencing, be for a specified period of time, and be based upon the offense committed.

Just gave to agree to disagree.

The gov can after due process lock one up or even kill

But. It has no authority to deny a person released from prison their rights beyond that point.

Actually it constitutionally has no authority over weapons or the people's right to them.

 

[2a4all]

Just gave to agree to disagree.

The gov can after due process lock one up or even kill

But. It has no authority to deny a person released from prison their rights beyond that point.

Actually it constitutionally has no authority over weapons or the people's right to them.

When the Constitution was drafted by the Framers, their primary concern was that a central government be limited in its powers and would be unable to infringe on the rights of the states and its citizens. All of the original 13 colonies had laws governing firearms, and they were different from each other, but any issues that residents of those jurisdictions had with those laws were handled at that level.

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to ensure that the Federal government would abide by those bounds. But, alas, in the intervening 200+ years, those boundaries have been eroded.

 

[eye95]

Just gave to agree to disagree.

The gov can after due process lock one up or even kill

But. It has no authority to deny a person released from prison their rights beyond that point.

Actually it constitutionally has no authority over weapons or the people's right to them.

That is simply not what the Constitution says. You are entitled to your opinion that that is the way things ought to be. However the fact remains that that is not the way the Constitution says things are.

 

[Ghost1958]

That is simply not what the Constitution says. You are entitled to your opinion that that is the way things ought to be. However the fact remains that that is not the way the Constitution says things are.

Please point out in the 2A where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except those who have been in prison or the gov doesn't want to have them.

The RTKABA preexisted the constitution and this nation's gov and laws.
It will exist long after.

 

[Ghost1958]

When the Constitution was drafted by the Framers, their primary concern was that a central government be limited in its powers and would be unable to infringe on the rights of the states and its citizens. All of the original 13 colonies had laws governing firearms, and they were different from each other, but any issues that residents of those jurisdictions had with those laws were handled at that level.

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to ensure that the Federal government would abide by those bounds. But, alas, in the intervening 200+ years, those boundaries have been eroded.

Again. Have to agree to disagree.
The RTKABA existed before those state governments. Before any gov.

The idea a gov has the authority to interfere with a right that predated it by a few thousand years is ridiculous on its face.
That they use threat of or use of force to do so is another matter.

 

[FreedomVA]

gunwatch.blogspot.com/2018/05/us-district-court-finds-some-felons.html

U.S. District Court finds Some Felons Have Second Amendment Rights

On 26 April, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois held that some felons have the right to keep ...

gunwatch.blogspot.com

 

[eye95]

Please point out in the 2A where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except those who have been in prison or the gov doesn't want to have them.

The RTKABA preexisted the constitution and this nation's gov and laws.
It will exist long after.

What the Constitution says, not in the 2A, is that the government may not deprive people of Life, Liberty, or property without due process of law, clearly indicating that Liberty, including the RKBA can be deprived after due process.

The RKBA is not the Natural Right. Self-defense is. The RKBA is an enumerated Right, a prohibition on government behavior, for which the due process clause provides an exception.

I have now made this exact point twice. I won’t bother making it again, even if I am asked yet again.

That being said, I disagree with the political decision that all felonies should result in a permanent deprivation of the RKBA. The removal of that particular Liberty should be the result of sentencing, on a case-by-case basis, just as other removals of Liberty are following due process.

 

[eye95]

gunwatch.blogspot.com/2018/05/us-district-court-finds-some-felons.html

U.S. District Court finds Some Felons Have Second Amendment Rights

On 26 April, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois held that some felons have the right to keep ...

gunwatch.blogspot.com

A pro-constitutional ruling.

As I have said many times, we shouldn’t have all-felons-have-their-RKBA-stripped-for-all-time laws

 

[Ghost1958]

What the Constitution says, not in the 2A, is that the government may not deprive people of Life, Liberty, or property without due process of law, clearly indicating that Liberty, including the RKBA can be deprived after due process.

The RKBA is not the Natural Right. Self-defense is. The RKBA is an enumerated Right, a prohibition on government behavior, for which the due process clause provides an exception.

I have now made this exact point twice. I won’t bother making it again, even if I am asked yet again.

That being said, I disagree with the political decision that all felonies should result in a permanent deprivation of the RKBA. The removal of that particular Liberty should be the result of sentencing, on a case-by-case basis, just as other removals of Liberty are following due process.

And I will not point again that the right use arms IE weapons is a natural right as old as man, and no gov has authority to regulate it

As I said, agree to disagree.