Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Virginia Gun Ban for Violent Offenders May Have New Life

Advocates for a bill that would ban anyone convicted of stalking, sexual battery or physical domestic abuse of a family member from possessing a gun for five years are trying to revive the effort.

The Senate passed the bill 29-6, but last week a House criminal law subcommittee tabled the bill on a voice vote, then later voted to send a letter to the Virginia Crime Commission for further study.
Lori Haas, with Virginians for Responsible Gun Laws, stressed that the bill would mean a temporary prohibition on firearm possession by people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors.
“This bill does not impact law-abiding citizens,” she said.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, opposes the measure because the convictions that the bill would apply to are misdemeanors and not felonies.
“If in the law, something is a misdemeanor, a minor crime, then it should not take away your rights,” he said. “How they draw those lines is up to the General Assembly.”

9 comments:

  1. “If in the law, something is a misdemeanor, a minor crime, then it should not take away your rights,” he said. “How they draw those lines is up to the General Assembly.”

    "Lori Haas, with Virginians for Responsible Gun Laws, stressed that the bill would mean a temporary prohibition on firearm possession by people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors."

    “A right delayed is a right denied.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

    If they want to make the people who commit these crimes prohibited persons, then they should man up and try to sell their constituents on making the crimes felonies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree 100%.

      And I'd venture that they'd find some support--especially on sexual battery--something where I can't figure out why it wouldn't be a felony already.

      We really need complete overhauls in each state and at the federal level--tons of things that are felonies that ought not be, and apparently some things that aren't felonies that ought to be. Pretty fucked when an almost rape isn't a felony but planing a guitar neck since it was too thick is.

      Delete
    2. What's the difference if they make those crimes felonies or not? Why is that "manning up?" Isn't the main point to disarm these people because they're obviously unfit to safely own guns? Or do you guys deny that?

      Delete
    3. Because we're not the monomaniacal people you claim us to be. These offenses should be felonies for many reasons. Mikeb, you want to expand the list of prohibited persons, while we want the punishment to fit the crime.

      Delete
    4. "What's the difference if they make those crimes felonies or not?"

      Currently, the level of crime needed to result in the loss of Constitutional rights is conviction of a felony. This proposed law wants to punish citizens further after they have, as Batman often said in his show, "paid their debt to society".
      If the legislature wants to make people who commit violent misdemeanors prohibited persons, then they are by all means free to use the legislative process to make the crimes in question felonies. And after its passed, those people who are convicted would then be prohibited persons.
      But adding an additional punishment onto an already convicted person through the legislative process isn't right.

      Delete
    5. Mike,

      The others have already said it well, so I'll try not to be redundant and merely rehash what they've said.

      I do want to second what Greg said about making punishments fit the crime--as I said above, the system is skewed--we make some things felonies that really don't deserve such a long time in jail or the rendering infamous that goes along with that. Meanwhile, seriously Virginia? Sexual battery isn't a felony?

      Another reason we would rather see offenses turned into felonies rather than prohibited person status attaching to violent misdemeanors is that felony convictions attach infamy. This declaration of infamy is how we have traditionally limited their rights (voting rights, rights to hold offices of trust, gun rights, etc.). We prefer to keep the system consistent and only apply limitations on rights as part of a rendering of infamy by a court.

      So those are two main reasons: 1--make sure there is sufficient punishment for heinous crimes; 2--protect integrity of the system by attaching infamy or elements thereof only upon felony convictions.

      Delete
    6. I don't find any of your explanations any good. We already prohibit misdemeanor domestic abusers from owning guns, at least in most places. What's wrong with that?

      I would disarm all violent criminals, even if their convictions are only misdemeanors. On the other hand, felony white collar criminals should not lose their gun rights. You've heard me say that before, no?

      The determination of whether or not someone can safely own and use guns cannot be a "one size fits all" deal, to quote one of Greg's favorite lines.

      Delete
    7. Slap one wife, lose your gun rights. Toss thousands of wives out of their homes, keep your gun rights.

      In my view, both actions should get the perpetrator a good stretch in lockup.

      Delete
    8. Simon says: “Meanwhile, seriously Virginia? Sexual battery isn't a felony?”

      I wonder if it isn’t that all sexual battery is a misdemeanor, but rather they have two levels: misdemeanor and felony depending on the seriousness.

      Delete