Very Interesting White Paper

From: James M. Atkinson <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 13:34:58 -0400

>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:18 2024
X-Received: by 10.236.120.166 with SMTP id p26mr4213018yhh.57.1368035544813;
        Wed, 08 May 2013 10:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.49.34.211 with SMTP id b19ls1035900qej.88.gmail; Wed, 08 May
 2013 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.224.165.130 with SMTP id i2mr7950826qay.2.1368035539810;
        Wed, 08 May 2013 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.115.67 with SMTP id h3msqaq;
        Wed, 8 May 2013 10:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.59.5.138 with SMTP id cm10mr4294665ved.36.1368035345770;
        Wed, 08 May 2013 10:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <jnfer..._at_gmail.com>
Received: from mail-ve0-x22d.google.com (mail-ve0-x22d.google.com [2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i16si2315828vdg.2.2013.05.08.10.49.05
        for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 08 May 2013 10:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jnfer..._at_gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of jnfer..._at_gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jnfer..._at_gmail.com;
       dkim=pass head..._at_gmail.com
Received: by mail-ve0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id ox1so2052703veb.4
        for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>; Wed, 08 May 2013 10:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=PZcQ868xkV1/1LkEkI2HFfC0iFETExMkq2RcySvRtNc=;
        b=nCfJBsaRA30Y2Rdy00T+Y15LM70Xvl64iRuPDcNjJa2aOFKRhaXbZFUwSe7p9FXCgP
         qp8ij8RpoRkZNu2RAiycilZ/MaIs2H2/Czz4gJRkUNtJsa2v1UkpkOU0BP2iVc7U6JFn
         Y2eoKpJMxaLlWIUX3Od78fwuhsEZNbti8OpNm/PJ2L3mmdS1JOLagIjp2XpBgrb1VReh
         MmEfCskTRmSx2u5Ckh02pLghX7xcgIMP7BmBocyoTDE2pOTDUCruVLQVlmnvtL80gDu7
         Z+3IGvoUcFNuwY3DtdWvZDR7vagQ6mN1cVHQfImcZOxrWtPG+bQ7X7oWw3Yjuaj7st9t
         Zhig==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.200.131 with SMTP id js3mr5421628vec.33.1368035345693;
 Wed, 08 May 2013 10:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.164.168 with HTTP; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <518A8CC2.1000005_at_tscm.com>
References: <518A8CC2.1000005_at_tscm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 11:49:05 -0600
Message-ID: <CADCX+3WWHyjmar8CuqMBO=1wofJkfzCGH8apfQRS53BMHF6Fwg_at_mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] {6402} Very Interesting White Paper
From: Justin Ferguson <jnfer..._at_gmail.com>
To: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi James,

Sort of a random question that I wanted to see what your thoughts were
on. I was raised around firearms, a card carrying member of the NRA
most of my life, yadda yadda. However, in my early twenties/college I
was caught with pot in a state where all possession charges are a
felony, and so there I go, already disqualified. A few years later, I
managed to catch a domestic violence charge for an incident where I
was defending a woman from her abusive boyfriend and I sort of got
screwed-- thereby double disqualifying myself. On a personal level, I
am okay with this, but I wonder just how many people there are like me
out there-- those disqualified from what is supposed to be fairly
fundamental rights on what basically amounts of legal technicalities
and most certainly do not entirely fall under the spirit of the law.

More over, the domestic violence charge is interesting, I was charged
with a misdemeanor 'threatening and intimidation' charge, which at
first glance sans some pretty specific situations like threatening the
president, it seems like that is somewhat fundamentally a violation of
at least the concept of the 1st amendment, but far more importantly to
me, because I was charged with a misdemeanor that had a maximum
sentence under 6 months, I was not automatically granted a trial by
jury (SCOTUS has ruled that imprisonment under 6 months is
'non-serious' and therefore not subject to the right of a jury trial),
but the prosecutor is free to add on a domestic violence penalty
enhancer, which itself disqualifies a person from firearm ownership,
however this fundamental right was taken from me without even so much
as a jury trial.

My base point isn't so much about aspects of my life, or even that I
want a firearm, but more that there are so many corner cases that a
person can end up disqualified without actually being the sort of
person we envision when we talk about the disqualifiers that it seems
reasonable to believe that the percentage of people in this exact
scenario is probably fairly substantial, which in a time of crisis
would absolutely impact the citizens ability to defend the homeland.

I was mostly curious about your thoughts here, as you talk about the
2nd amendment fairly frequently and in an educated manner and always
point out the caveats pertaining to restrictions of firearm ownership,
so I was curious to hear what thoughts you had, if any, on the
subject.

Best Regards,

Justin N. Ferguson
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:18 CST