Folks Found NOT Guilty Banned From Owning Guns??????

[Clarence]

This is the same Pettyjohn that withdrew a bill to stop lawsuits against the Punkin Chunkers because the trial lawyers were opposed to it.  Sounds like a real snake in the grass politician to me.

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

This is the same Pettyjohn that withdrew a bill to stop lawsuits against the Punkin Chunkers because the trial lawyers were opposed to it.  Sounds like a real snake in the grass politician to me. B

Most politicians are

[seniorgeek]

Why do politicians believe that we need more laws? That is not their job.

Their job is to conduct the business of the government which may be in very rare circumstances require a new law. What is required is to reduce inappropriate laws, unenforceable laws, review current laws and make changes "if" necessary.   

Their are so many laws on the books that mean nothing, do nothing, are nothing, and should be removed.

The reason with all these unnecessary laws are most of the politicians are lawyers.

Going back to biblical days, and even earlier, lawyers were the scum of the earth to most common people and only served the "king".

(off soap box now)

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

Why do politicians believe that we need more laws? That is not their job.

Their job is to conduct the business of the government which may be in very rare circumstances require a new law. What is required is to reduce inappropriate laws, unenforceable laws, review current laws and make changes "if" necessary.   

Their are so many laws on the books that mean nothing, do nothing, are nothing, and should be removed.

The reason with all these unnecessary laws are most of the politicians are lawyers.

Going back to biblical days, and even earlier, lawyers were the scum of the earth to most common people and only served the "king".

(off soap box now)

Great observation.

Another thing to really think about that ads to what you say. Think of the Constitution and the amount of pages ( normal paper today) it is. That is the document that IS SUPPOSED to govern our whole government. Now most laws are several thousand pages long.

This is the problem.

[robberbaron]

Lawyers tend to govern us, that is true, but what is more insidious is that lawyers (and Bureaucrats) tend to have very large staffs that need to keep busy. They write the laws that the elected representatives don't even read and they burden society with their Utopian visions. I say limit the Congressional staffs to no more than 2 people. The number of laws brought to a vote would shrink dramatically.

[Cbmarine]

Bill has been introduced

Senate Bill # 162

Primary Sponsor:   Pettyjohn    Additional Sponsor(s):    Rep. Briggs King & Rep. Wilson
CoSponsors:   Sens. Bushweller, Ennis, Hocker, Lavelle, Lawson, McDowell, Peterson, Simpson, Sokola, Reps. Dukes, Gray, Mitchell, D. Short, Smyk, Spiegelman
Introduced on :   01/23/2014   
Long Title:   AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO POSSESSION AND PURCHASE OF DEADLY WEAPONS BY PERSONS PROHIBITED.
Synopsis:   This Bill expands the crime of possession and purchase of deadly weapons by persons prohibited to include perpetrators of violent crimes who have been found Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity, Guilty But Mentally Ill, or Mentally Incompetent to Stand Trial, including juveniles who fall into those categories.
Current Status:    Senate Executive Committee   On   01/23/2014

http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis147.nsf/d0089be0dea91f34852569d6004dedbb/92a95d957301033d85257c61005ff6a7?OpenDocument

​​​b.  has been found not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty but mentally ill, including any juvenile who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill, of a crime of violence unless such person can demonstrate that he or she is no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to § 1448A of this title; or
​​​c.  has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial for a crime of violence, including any juvenile who has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, unless there has been a subsequent finding that the person has become competent, or unless such person can demonstrate that he or she is no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to § 1448A of this title;

[Clarence]

Remember, a "crime of violence" could include a fist fight.  In this case a juvenile who gets into a fight and is deemed unfit for trial is banned FOR LIFE from having the means to defend himself or future family.   

This us another example of well intentioned legislation having the capacity to create a grave injustice. 

[Cbmarine]

Remember, a "crime of violence" could include a fist fight.  In this case a juvenile who gets into a fight and is deemed unfit for trial is banned FOR LIFE from having the means to defend himself or future family.   

This us another example of well intentioned legislation having the capacity to create a grave injustice. 

Is the person banned for life? The proposed wording includes "unless such person can demonstrate that he or she is no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to § 1448A of this title".

[fdegree]

Remember, a "crime of violence" could include a fist fight.  In this case a juvenile who gets into a fight and is deemed unfit for trial is banned FOR LIFE from having the means to defend himself or future family.   

This us another example of well intentioned legislation having the capacity to create a grave injustice. 

Is the person banned for life? The proposed wording includes "unless such person can demonstrate that he or she is no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to § 1448A of this title".

• Demonstrate to what standard?
• Demonstrate to whose level of acceptance?
• The person to which it must be demonstrated...

           -...What is their political view?
           -...What is their personal view?
           -...Will they truly be unbiased?
           -...Who will be pulling their strings?

To me, it is not clear and detailed enough to eliminate any chance of injustice by someone with an anti agneda

[Cbmarine]

Remember, a "crime of violence" could include a fist fight.  In this case a juvenile who gets into a fight and is deemed unfit for trial is banned FOR LIFE from having the means to defend himself or future family.   

This us another example of well intentioned legislation having the capacity to create a grave injustice. 

Is the person banned for life? The proposed wording includes "unless such person can demonstrate that he or she is no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to § 1448A of this title".

• Demonstrate to what standard?
• Demonstrate to whose level of acceptance?
• The person to which it must be demonstrated...

           -...What is their political view?
           -...What is their personal view?
           -...Will they truly be unbiased?
           -...Who will be pulling their strings?

To me, it is not clear and detailed enough to eliminate any chance of injustice by someone with an anti agneda

Great reminder. Law has commonalities with requirements (in a formal sense).  The attributes of a successful requirement are: feasible, unambiguous, complete, and testable (among others).  @fdegree has pointed out a lack of testability.

[Moosie]

This is the same Pettyjohn that withdrew a bill to stop lawsuits against the Punkin Chunkers because the trial lawyers were opposed to it.  Sounds like a real snake in the grass politician to me.

So, by sponsoring a bill that would help keep Punkin Chunkin here in Delaware, and also cap liability at special events, he's a snake in the grass??  Interesting.

Moosie

[Clarence]

This is the same Pettyjohn that withdrew a bill to stop lawsuits against the Punkin Chunkers because the trial lawyers were opposed to it.  Sounds like a real snake in the grass politician to me.

So, by sponsoring a bill that would help keep Punkin Chunkin here in Delaware, and also cap liability at special events, he's a snake in the grass??  Interesting.

Moosie

No, not at all.  That is NOT what I said.

He is a snake in the grass politician because he withdrew the bill to protect events like Pumpkin Chunkin from law suits because of opposition from trial lawyers ( ambulance chasers).

He is afraid to cross them.  That makes him a "snake in the grass". 

He feels that the economic well being of the lawyers is more important than protecting honest property owners from frivilous lawsuits. 

[poster formerly know as Silverbullet]

Sadly guys most politicians of both parties are snakes in the grass.

[Moosie]

Thanks for the clarification, Clarence. I see where youre coming from.

Moosie