Vietnam Veteran Retroactively Deprived His 2nd Amendment Rights
February 28, 2013
Here's another entry to the outrageously "not right" file that I knew was coming, though not when or in what form. I've also previously posted that some of our existing firearms related laws should be changed. Some of those changes include laws that should be removed, weakened or made more specific to target the real threats and not catch others in their nets. Here’s a real and current example.
We commonly are told that convicted felons lose their 2nd Amendment rights. That’s for life. On the surface this seems like a good thing, right? It provides for our common safety to keep the ‘violent’ people from possessing guns. We all sort of translate ‘felon’ into ‘violent felon’ when we hear it, don’t we? Well, here’s a case that puts a crack into that thinking and policy.
Our government has retroactively applied today’s policy to something that occurred in 1968 with this Vietnam veteran sailor. As a teenager, he was convicted of a common-law (don’t know what that means) “misdemeanor” (not a felony) for “assault and battery” for punching someone. He chose to pay the $109 fine instead of spending 30 days in jail because he was currently serving in the Navy. In the 4+ decades since this conviction, he served in Vietnam, has legally bought and sold several firearms, and has had no trouble with the law. The first time he was prevented purchasing a firearm was in 2008, 40 years after his misdemeanor conviction.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/u-s-gun-laws-retroactively-barred-this-vietnam-vet-from-owning-a-firearm-because-of-a-teenage-misdemeanor-45-years-ago/
So when we hear that felons are prevented from legal firearms ownership, what it really means is ‘felons and those convicted of lesser misdemeanors’. Apparently the misdemeanors in question are those for which someone “could” be sentenced to 2 years in jail. (This article makes no mention of whether they must involve violence.) But in 1968, there was no established maximum sentence for this crime. Today, in the 21st century, there is. And this veteran is being held to today’s sentencing standard for something that didn’t apply to him or his conviction in 1968. That’s wrong.
This script could be followed for many thousands of citizens – do something impulsive or stupid as a teenager, lose your rights for the rest of your life. This goes too far. Sure, if a person commits a violent crime with a gun, including robbery, ban them. That’s clearly too far. But let’s make sure it’s real violence or serious crime. A punch doesn’t quite meet that standard for me. How many people have been in fist fights in their youth? What if, upon throwing that first punch, you lost your rights for the rest of your life? How many of us would be so affected? Ridiculous.
There are already known problems with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) used for firearms purchases. Much like its younger brother, the TSA no-fly list, people who should NOT be on the list are negatively impacted and prevented from exercising their lawful rights. It can take months to fix those issues. There are also names that should be in NICS that are not there, but that’s not today’s topic. There needs to be an efficient way of clearing a person from NICS. And it shouldn’t cost the lawful citizen a dime. The government system is what’s broken, not the citizen. There should also be a way for those convicted of certain crimes to get their 2nd Amendment rights back. This Navy Vietnam vet is a perfect example, but it should be extended to other people and situations too. We like to comfort ourselves by saying that once a criminal has served their time, they’ve paid their debt to society. But, clearly, that’s not always the case. And some of those debts should truly be wiped clean. As in the case of this veteran, decades of lawful behavior should be able to wipe the slate clean of an impulsive act in youth.
Even more recent than this 2008 issue, still being fought in 2013, is the recently exposed situation where the Veterans Administration is informing an unknown number of vets that they may lose their 2nd Amendment rights, and some of them have no idea why. This 'decision' is to be made in a VA administrative hearing, not through "due process" in our justice system. Again, wrong.
http://www.veterans.senate.gov/rankingmember/ranking-press-releases.cfm?action=release.display&release_id=24eda349-fc49-4503-9c7b-f69bd3e9317d
Although this Senate webpage is not dated, it is in response to the issue that came under the national spotlight in February 2013. Mention of the 110th Congress (last paragraph) is historical.
No comments:
Post a Comment